NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Falcon Missions Section => Topic started by: beancounter on 06/18/2010 02:21 am

Title: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: beancounter on 06/18/2010 02:21 am
I see the mission now has a launch date of 18th August 2010. 


COTS Demo 1 Threads
Space Falcon 9 Flight 2 Static Fire - December 4, 2010 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23454.0)
SpaceX Falcon 9 (Flight 2) - COTS-1 - Launch Updates - December 8, 2010 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23516.0)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mduncan36 on 06/18/2010 02:47 am
I see the mission now has a launch date of 18th August 2010. 

Just wondering where you find that information?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: zaitcev on 06/18/2010 03:26 am
I see the mission now has a launch date of 18th August 2010. 
Just wondering where you find that information?
http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/MissionData.php?mission=COTS%20SpaceX%20Demo-1
(http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/launches.php)

-- Pete
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 06/18/2010 03:43 am
I see the mission now has a launch date of 18th August 2010. 

So we will see if the "SpaceX multiplier" continues to decrease.
By my (highly subjective) reckoning, it has been 4.3X, 3.5X, and 2.4X for the first three successful missions. 
A  further reduction to 2X puts it around the middle of October, but we will see.

Don't get me wrong.  I do wish them a lot of good luck, and hope for the best.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 06/18/2010 05:11 am
Yep I agree with the timeframes except SpaceX seems to be learning at a faster rate so I'll go with the middle of September. 

The unknowns timewise are the unexpected roll on the 2 stage of the LV and anything regarding processing with the Dragon so allowing an extra month seems reasonable.  Haven't checked the range for any launchings around that time though.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpaceX_MS on 06/19/2010 04:25 am
I see the mission now has a launch date of 18th August 2010. 


Is later. L2 has accurate information.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: simonth on 06/19/2010 06:28 pm
I see the mission now has a launch date of 18th August 2010. 
Is later. L2 has accurate information.


Is there a possibility to get a "ballpark" estimate for non-L2 users on here? Is September still possible or has the target date shifted outwards?

Another question would be whether the information provided to NASA that there will be an 8 month gap between COTS Demo 1 and 2 is still accurate or whether that gap is cut down if COTS Demo 1 is shifted significantly to the right?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 06/19/2010 06:30 pm
Is September still possible

Yes.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Nate_Trost on 06/19/2010 08:07 pm
I think it would be fair to presume that the increased delay between COTS1 and COTS2 are due to schedule slips in finishing Dragon. While the COTS1 Dragon is certainly going to be a functioning spacecraft, I would suspect there is some hardware and more software that isn't done yet.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/19/2010 08:18 pm
In some ways, COTS demo 1 will be harder than Falcon 9 maiden launch. After all, Falcon 9 is essentially a scale-up of Falcon 1 in many ways. Now, they have a spacecraft to build and launch... and recover!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 06/19/2010 08:41 pm
There *is* no launch date. Why do people get hung up on provisional NET times? It may happen before September or it may not. I don't think even the guys at SpaceX know at this point.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kch on 06/19/2010 09:12 pm
There *is* no launch date. Why do people get hung up on provisional NET times? It may happen before September or it may not. I don't think even the guys at SpaceX know at this point.

As is true of any launch vehicle, "It'll launch when it launches, and not one nanosecond before."  Worrying and jittering about it won't change it.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/20/2010 03:05 am
There *is* no launch date. Why do people get hung up on provisional NET times? It may happen before September or it may not. I don't think even the guys at SpaceX know at this point.
You're right that even SpaceX probably doesn't know when it will launch. Only God knows.






And Jim. ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 06/20/2010 01:09 pm
November
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/20/2010 02:29 pm
Has the mission profile been announced or discussed yet? I'm thinking that this will be a Dragon shake-down - insertion to a stable orbit, operating all in-orbit systems (nav platform, sun tracking for the solar arrays, payload bay cooling etc.) as well as some orbital manoeuvring.  However, I haven't seen any hint about how long they will keep the Dragon in orbit.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kch on 06/20/2010 02:53 pm
Has the mission profile been announced or discussed yet? I'm thinking that this will be a Dragon shake-down - insertion to a stable orbit, operating all in-orbit systems (nav platform, sun tracking for the solar arrays, payload bay cooling etc.) as well as some orbital manoeuvring.  However, I haven't seen any hint about how long they will keep the Dragon in orbit.

The latest I've seen is on SpaceX's Dragon page (http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php):

Demo 1
Duration:
5 hours
Objectives: Launch and separate from Falcon 9, orbit Earth, transmit telemetry, receive commands, demonstrate orbital maneuvering and thermal control, re-enter atmosphere, and recover Dragon spacecraft

:)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/20/2010 05:21 pm
Duration: 5 hours

Just short of four complete orbits, then.  More-or-less the same duration as Friendship-7.  Well, here's hoping it goes a bit smoother than the earlier flight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/22/2010 06:39 pm
We're up to NET Aug 26th - but too far out for a solid date yet.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 06/23/2010 02:27 am
November

Spoilsport!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChefPat on 06/23/2010 11:41 am
We're up to NET Aug 26th - but too far out for a solid date yet.
Chris, is this inside info or has it been announced somewhere?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/23/2010 11:48 am
We're up to NET Aug 26th - but too far out for a solid date yet.
Chris, is this inside info or has it been announced somewhere?

Brown envelope handed to me in a dark car park ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Garrett on 06/23/2010 11:56 am
For the moment I'm still sticking to my "prediction" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21904.msg603030#msg603030) of October
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Spiff on 06/23/2010 12:08 pm
We're up to NET Aug 26th - but too far out for a solid date yet.
Chris, is this inside info or has it been announced somewhere?

Brown envelope handed to me in a dark car park ;)

... By a man in a raincoat, with sunglasses, and an Italian accent?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: zerm on 07/16/2010 03:18 am
We're up to NET Aug 26th - but too far out for a solid date yet.
Chris, is this inside info or has it been announced somewhere?

Brown envelope handed to me in a dark car park ;)


Chris... I thought that was you getting your envelope at the same time I was getting one of mine in that "car park"... what're you doin' in Washington DC? (that sort of thing happens daily here, of course).

BTW- I'm with Jim on this one... November.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SIM city on 07/16/2010 03:37 pm
FDF posted a new date this week of 9 Sept.
http://fdfhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/fdinfo_Launch_2010.html
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 06:39 pm
The same date is also posted on SFN.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChuckC on 07/16/2010 07:06 pm
FDF posted a new date this week of 9 Sept.
http://fdfhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/fdinfo_Launch_2010.html
This has to be correct after all it’s from NASA.gov and we know the Government would never lie to us. Yea right and Elvis is playing poker on Mars with Amelia Airheart.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 07/16/2010 07:45 pm
This has to be correct after all it’s from NASA.gov and we know the Government would never lie to us. Yea right and Elvis is playing poker on Mars with Amelia Airheart (sic).

What, they're not allowed to have provisional planning dates anymore? You think all the other dates in that table are "correct" and set in stone?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2010 08:31 pm
FDF posted a new date this week of 9 Sept.
http://fdfhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/fdinfo_Launch_2010.html
This has to be correct after all it’s from NASA.gov and we know the Government would never lie to us. Yea right and Elvis is playing poker on Mars with Amelia Airheart.

That is not an "official" NASA manifest nor does NASA have any say in Spacex's schedule.  It is a working level  manifest for those at GSFC who supply comm, tracking and TDRSS support to those missions.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 07/20/2010 02:50 am
I'll be happy if it's any time before the end of the year. 

Then I understand that SpaceX want to use a successful mission to argue for the merging of COTS-C2 and C3 missions.

I wonder how open NASA will be to flying a single C2/C3 mission if COTS-C1 is completely successful?  Presumably would save SpaceX money but not NASA who will make the full payments based on the milestones achieved not number of missions if I understand SpaceX logic.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/20/2010 09:40 am
I wonder how open NASA will be to flying a single C2/C3 mission if COTS-C1 is completely successful?  Presumably would save SpaceX money but not NASA who will make the full payments based on the milestones achieved not number of missions if I understand SpaceX logic.

IMHO, I think that NASA will not commit to merging C2 and C3 until C2 is underway.  If the Dragon vehicle shows sufficient control reliability and responsiveness, then they will allow SpaceX to open the C3 mission book and progress onto the objectives therein.  Otherwise, no-go.  Bring the vehicle back, apply the fixes determined from post-flight to the next unit and fly C3 seperately when ready.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 07/20/2010 12:36 pm
Presumably would save SpaceX money but not NASA who will make the full payments based on the milestones achieved not number of missions if I understand SpaceX logic.

Yes, it's to save SpaceX money and compress the already dealyed schedule a bit. They're arguing that since NASA is paying for a service demonstration (delivery of cargo to ISS), the actual number of flights is less relevant.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 07/20/2010 12:58 pm
IMHO, I think that NASA will not commit to merging C2 and C3 until C2 is underway.  If the Dragon vehicle shows sufficient control reliability and responsiveness, then they will allow SpaceX to open the C3 mission book and progress onto the objectives therein.  Otherwise, no-go.

I'm not sure NASA can or will decide whether C2 is allowed to dock on the fly. Either everyone plans for it from the start - in which case C2 is C3 or they don't in which case C2 remains C2.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/20/2010 01:28 pm
IMHO, I think that NASA will not commit to merging C2 and C3 until C2 is underway.  If the Dragon vehicle shows sufficient control reliability and responsiveness, then they will allow SpaceX to open the C3 mission book and progress onto the objectives therein.  Otherwise, no-go.

I'm not sure NASA can or will decide whether C2 is allowed to dock on the fly. Either everyone plans for it from the start - in which case C2 is C3 or they don't in which case C2 remains C2.

What I meant is that the C3 mission objectives would be secondary objectives on the C2 flight.  If the C2 objectives are met and sufficient reserves of propellent, coolant, etc., are avaiable, then they can move onto the secondary objectives.  Otherwise, they would be the primary objectives of the next flight.  I know that they've done that a few times on shuttle missions where EVAs on the ISS have been shunted back to the next flight on the grounds of delays or equipment trouble.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 07/20/2010 05:14 pm
IMHO, I think that NASA will not commit to merging C2 and C3 until C2 is underway.  If the Dragon vehicle shows sufficient control reliability and responsiveness, then they will allow SpaceX to open the C3 mission book and progress onto the objectives therein.  Otherwise, no-go.

I'm not sure NASA can or will decide whether C2 is allowed to dock on the fly. Either everyone plans for it from the start - in which case C2 is C3 or they don't in which case C2 remains C2.

If I remember correctly at the last Shuttle post-landing conference, a reporter asked that question. I believe that their answer was that a decision hadn't been made on this and that they would need to discuss it with SpaceX. However, they specified that the decision could not be made prior to the C1 test (which seems reasonable to me). 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 07/20/2010 05:19 pm
It's just flight rules, my friends.  If requirements WXYZ are still go at the end of the C2 tests, they go try to berth.  If not, they go retro.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 07/20/2010 05:27 pm
If requirements WXYZ are still go at the end of the C2 tests, they go try to berth.  If not, they go retro.

Since C2 wasn't supposed to berth, just approach ISS, that by definition means C3 objectives are addressed with C2.

My point is NASA won't decide to allow C2 to dock in mid-flight, if they allow docking it wil be decided before flight (thus condensing C3 to C2) and the final go/no-go for docking will obviously be decided after other objectives are safely demonstrated as you say.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: simonth on 07/20/2010 06:34 pm
If requirements WXYZ are still go at the end of the C2 tests, they go try to berth.  If not, they go retro.

Since C2 wasn't supposed to berth, just approach ISS, that by definition means C3 objectives are addressed with C2.

My point is NASA won't decide to allow C2 to dock in mid-flight, if they allow docking it wil be decided before flight (thus condensing C3 to C2) and the final go/no-go for docking will obviously be decided after other objectives are safely demonstrated as you say.

It's a question of definition. I expect C2 to be dropped for C3 due to schedule delays that NASA can ill afford.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 07/21/2010 05:42 am
Does anyone know what's different about the Orbital program that makes less flights acceptable as compared SpaceX or was it simply the agreement reached with NASA?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2010 08:57 am
I think it would be logical to plan for a merge of C2/C3 activities on the C2 flight.   If the C2 ops go according to plan, they get a green light to proceed into the C3 mission objectives, however if there are any significant concerns raised during the C2 ops, a no-go is issued and the C3 mission ops get bumped to the next flight after some more development can be done.

That's a fairly reasonable way to proceed without compromising either mission planning, schedule- or cost-profiles.

Plan for all outcomes.

Ross.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 07/21/2010 12:23 pm
Does anyone know what's different about the Orbital program that makes less flights acceptable as compared SpaceX or was it simply the agreement reached with NASA?

Simply the agreement with NASA and there was less money available after RPK used up some.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 07/22/2010 02:02 am
Does anyone know what's different about the Orbital program that makes less flights acceptable as compared SpaceX or was it simply the agreement reached with NASA?

Simply the agreement with NASA and there was less money available after RPK used up some.
Good to know.  So there really is no reason why SpaceX can't renegotiate with NASA provided NASA are open to it.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 07/22/2010 04:02 am
Does anyone know what's different about the Orbital program that makes less flights acceptable as compared SpaceX or was it simply the agreement reached with NASA?

Simply the agreement with NASA and there was less money available after RPK used up some.
Good to know.  So there really is no reason why SpaceX can't renegotiate with NASA provided NASA are open to it.

Orbital got an agreement for fewer flights because they have already flown dozens of government payloads on smaller rockets so as such they had a more established working relationship and technical capability vs SpaceX which was a new outfit.

If NASA feels that SpaceX at some point has demonstrated a sufficiently reliable capability (such as after C1) then they may be more open to reducing the number of demo flights.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 07/22/2010 05:25 am
Both companies proposed something (2 very different courses of demonstration) and NASA agreed to what they proposed.  It's really not more than that.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 07/22/2010 11:50 am
Does anyone know what's different about the Orbital program that makes less flights acceptable as compared SpaceX or was it simply the agreement reached with NASA?

Simply the agreement with NASA and there was less money available after RPK used up some.
Good to know.  So there really is no reason why SpaceX can't renegotiate with NASA provided NASA are open to it.


No, you can't make that conclusion.  What NASA does for OSC has nothing to do with Spacex
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 07/22/2010 02:58 pm
Does anyone know what's different about the Orbital program that makes less flights acceptable as compared SpaceX or was it simply the agreement reached with NASA?

Simply the agreement with NASA and there was less money available after RPK used up some.

There is additionnal money (currently $312M under the Senate appropriation bill) in the Senate bill for COTS in FY 2011 which could include additionnal test flights. 

Quote
SEC. 401. COMMERCIAL CARGO DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
6 The Administrator shall continue to support the ex
7 isting Commercial Orbital Transportation Services pro
8 gram, aimed at enabling the commercial space industry
9 in support of NASA to develop reliable means of launching
10 cargo and supplies to the ISS throughout the duration of
11 the facility’s operation. The Administrator may apply
12 funds towards the reduction of risk to the timely start of
13 these services, specifically—
14 (1) efforts to conduct a flight test;
15 (2) accelerate development; and
16 (3) develop the ground infrastructure needed
17 for commercial cargo capability.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/23/2010 01:29 am
THe big thing is that SpaceX has never developed spacecraft before, while Orbital has for decades, plus they have had experience with an autonomous rendezvous mission (DART) and utilize existing components (IE HTV systems, STAR satellite bus)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 07/23/2010 02:14 am
It doesn't matter what the company has done.  It matters what the individuals in the company have done.  There are plenty of people at SpaceX with experience from other contractors and agencies.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 07/23/2010 04:39 am
It doesn't matter what the company has done.

Oh I disagree with that.

And Bolden has echoed that sentiment several times (that SpaceX would potentially be held to a higher standard initially than Orbital because of NASA's previous experience with them).
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 07/23/2010 10:50 am
It doesn't matter what the company has done.

Oh I disagree with that.

And Bolden has echoed that sentiment several times (that SpaceX would potentially be held to a higher standard initially than Orbital because of NASA's previous experience with them).

You are wrong

1.  Spacex has no previous NASA experience, where as OSC does
2.  Bolden isn't one of the workers on the program
3.  Antares knows what he is talking about.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 07/23/2010 05:43 pm
1.  Spacex has no previous NASA experience, where as OSC does

Huh? That was exactly my point. They have more to prove in the initial demos because they have no previous experience. OSC has already proven they can launch payloads reliably (albeit on a smaller scale).

Bolden isn't one of the workers on the program

No, he's just the head of it, lol.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 07/23/2010 11:58 pm
It doesn't matter what the company has done.
Oh I disagree with that.

And Bolden has echoed that sentiment several times (that SpaceX would potentially be held to a higher standard initially than Orbital because of NASA's previous experience with them).

What's the basis for your disagreement?  At least I said why it doesn't matter.  A company is nothing.  The people are everything.

Bolden is wrong too.  There's no objective reason to hold SpaceX to a different standard than anyone else.  Either a standard is a standard or it shouldn't be there.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 07/24/2010 12:08 am
Unless the 'extended' standard helps someones agenda - political, economic or, more likely, both.   
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 07/24/2010 01:43 am
What's the basis for your disagreement?

The demonstrated record of performance to date. The previous successes and the institutional knowledge at the company about previous systems is seen as making development of newer systems more reliable. Even if you hire someone less experienced, if you are working within a program that has an established workflow that produces results, you can be effective.

Yes the people and competence of the workforce do matter the most, but you can also learn much from smaller designs you've done before.

In SpaceX's case you see that with F9 having it's first launch be a success while F1 took 4 tries.

Bolden was basically saying in his testimony that for commercial operators there would be varying levels of oversight and requirements from NASA for varying operators until they had demonstrated a reliable capability and as their reputation was established. I think that's perfectly reasonable. When you are a totally new player, you have more to prove.

That said, I think it's also perfectly reasonable to reevaluate requirements after the testing is underway. Now that the F9 worked on the first try, if Dragon works perfectly on C1, then maybe the other flights can be condensed. In some sense expanded requirements for newer operators can be used as a sort of buffer zone for failures, since you expect more failure from newer systems. If there are never any failures, then sure you may not need that.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 07/24/2010 05:12 am
While I can see the argument depending on assumptions, that's both bad governance and against procurement regulations, to treat different companies differently.  It probably wouldn't get past the GAO.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: telomerase99 on 07/25/2010 11:18 am
THe big thing is that SpaceX has never developed spacecraft before, while Orbital has for decades, plus they have had experience with an autonomous rendezvous mission (DART) and utilize existing components (IE HTV systems, STAR satellite bus)

Orbital has actually been using the same launch systems that were developed decades ago. Developing this new launch system is very new for their current generation of workers. All they have been doing is repeating systems developed decades ago.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: hop on 07/25/2010 09:02 pm
Orbital has actually been using the same launch systems that were developed decades ago. Developing this new launch system is very new for their current generation of workers. All they have been doing is repeating systems developed decades ago.
Launch vehicles, maybe (though Orbital still does have much more experience operating LVs than SpaceX), but not spacecraft. Having design heritage is widely believed to reduce risk, and Cygnus has far more heritage than Dragon. It is reasonable (and AFAIK within accepted industry practice) for both NASA and Orbital to assign a lower risk to the spacecraft development portion of the project.

The fact that Orbital has successfully brought many spacecraft projects to fruition probably has some effect on the decision makers expectations, even if it isn't an official criteria.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/25/2010 10:31 pm
Launch vehicles, maybe (though Orbital still does have much more experience operating LVs than SpaceX), but not spacecraft. Having design heritage is widely believed to reduce risk, and Cygnus has far more heritage than Dragon. It is reasonable (and AFAIK within accepted industry practice) for both NASA and Orbital to assign a lower risk to the spacecraft development portion of the project.

The fact that Orbital has successfully brought many spacecraft projects to fruition probably has some effect on the decision makers expectations, even if it isn't an official criteria.

I was under the impression that the original 3 launch COTS was milestone was written by SpaceX, not NASA. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: hop on 07/25/2010 11:01 pm
I was under the impression that the original 3 launch COTS was milestone was written by SpaceX, not NASA. 
So ? I'm not saying that SpaceX was forced into the 3 launch plan. Obviously both companies made proposals they thought minimized risk and maximized NASA chance of acceptance.

The point I'm making that there are objective reasons to believe that Cygnus is a lower risk development effort than Dragon, and this may have influenced the both the number of flights proposed and how acceptable each plan was to NASA.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 07/27/2010 02:27 am
The  Cape Insider (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/the-cape-week-i-10.html) on NASA Watch reported on July 25 that "SpaceX is planning to launch their next test flight of the Falcon 9 on Sept. 2, 2010"

 SpeceflightNow's Launch Schedule (http://http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html) says that as of July 26, SpaceX delayed the launch FROM September 9 until "Late September".

Does anyone out there have any real info on either of these claims?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: uko on 07/27/2010 12:40 pm
Any info on the hardware status for this flight?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Sage on 07/27/2010 01:52 pm
The  Cape Insider (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/the-cape-week-i-10.html) on NASA Watch reported on July 25 that "SpaceX is planning to launch their next test flight of the Falcon 9 on Sept. 2, 2010"

 SpeceflightNow's Launch Schedule (http://http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html) says that as of July 26, SpaceX delayed the launch FROM September 9 until "Late September".

Does anyone out there have any real info on either of these claims?

Launch is scheduled NET September 23.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 07/27/2010 02:03 pm
According to spaceflightnow.com, the first stage has arrived at the cape and is undergoing check out. Second stage should arrive in August. Dragon MAY be now completed and is undergoing testing before shipment (this is just my theory based on the timeline ???, Musk said six weeks ago it was 99% complete at that time).
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 07/27/2010 03:07 pm
As I said on another thread, the pacer for 1st flight spacecraft is almost always software.  Hardware at the Cape is probably not a good indicator of launch readiness for this flight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 07/29/2010 07:44 am
The software for the F9 apparently doesn't require any changes so far as I'm aware - unless there's some required to tune out the intial roll on launch.
That leaves the Dragon vehicle.  Anyone know where software development might be for this one?  Again, I would have thought pretty much completed.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/29/2010 07:56 am
...That leaves the Dragon vehicle.  Anyone know where software development might be for this one?  Again, I would have thought pretty much completed.

Based on what? I'd hope it was pretty much completed, but we haven't seen anything yet.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 07/30/2010 03:41 am
...That leaves the Dragon vehicle.  Anyone know where software development might be for this one?  Again, I would have thought pretty much completed.

Based on what? I'd hope it was pretty much completed, bu we haven't seen anything yet.
Simply SpaceX statement 99% complete.  Of course 1% could include the difficult stuff - presumably software??
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kkattula on 07/30/2010 07:38 am
...That leaves the Dragon vehicle.  Anyone know where software development might be for this one?  Again, I would have thought pretty much completed.

Based on what? I'd hope it was pretty much completed, but we haven't seen anything yet.
Simply SpaceX statement 99% complete.  Of course 1% could include the difficult stuff - presumably software??

Well if they're going by mass, software probably doesn't weigh a lot...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 08/11/2010 04:31 am
Posted by jabe in the "General Falcon & Dragon" thread an  Av Week article on the next Dragon (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/08/10/02.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Readies%20First%20Dragon%20Spacecraft)

"... the launch window target could be from late September to early October."

Not too much schedule slippage.
And this may be a schedule advance:

"A second operational Dragon is currently penciled in for a February 2011 launch,.."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 08/18/2010 03:48 am
This is a bit off-topic but I had a look at the Mission Set Database today and the SpaceX COTS Demo-3 has been deleted!  It had been set for 2011.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 08/18/2010 03:50 am
Full parachute test in preparation for COTS Demo 1 flight. nice picture! http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VHl1OPeOSOs/TGtIkg2s-VI/AAAAAAAAE5Y/CQNjZqiB8bU/s1600/IMGP2443.JPG
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 08/18/2010 03:54 am
Full parachute test in preparation for COTS Demo 1 flight. nice picture! http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VHl1OPeOSOs/TGtIkg2s-VI/AAAAAAAAE5Y/CQNjZqiB8bU/s1600/IMGP2443.JPG

Great picture.  Shows the 2 drougs and the 3 chutes all filling nicely.  Looks perfecto mondo :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 08/18/2010 06:17 am
This is a bit off-topic but I had a look at the Mission Set Database today and the SpaceX COTS Demo-3 has been deleted!  It had been set for 2011.

Deleted or moved to an undetermined date?

It seems doubtful that NASA would agree to delete the Demo-3 flight until at least Demo-1 was successful.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 08/18/2010 06:48 am
Well, it could mean that NASA may want to speed things up. Can't imagine NASA speeding anything up. It may be possible that a deal has been struck already to combine COTS 2 and 3. We probably won't know that until sometime after COTS1. NASA is not the type to jump the gun.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 08/18/2010 07:50 am
This is a bit off-topic but I had a look at the Mission Set Database today and the SpaceX COTS Demo-3 has been deleted!  It had been set for 2011.

I just checked the MSD and all 3 COTS flights were listed.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/18/2010 01:10 pm
The spaceX site still has it listed.

But spaceX also lists the first completed Falcon 9 flight as 2009, while giving exact dates for all completed falcon 1 flights.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 08/18/2010 05:03 pm
Enhanced the recent image to bring out a few details...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 08/18/2010 08:13 pm
One of the COTS office managers said NASA would not agree to combine Demo 2 and 3 until after Demo 1.  MSDB is at best a tertiary source.  Stick with primary sources.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 08/19/2010 01:51 am
One of the COTS office managers said NASA would not agree to combine Demo 2 and 3 until after Demo 1.  MSDB is at best a tertiary source.  Stick with primary sources.
I agree that NASA wouldn't change anything until after COTS-C Demo1 however the MSDB does have 'Deleted' against Demo-3.  Just wondered is all.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 08/19/2010 01:56 am
Sorry Antares, I mis-read your post.  What would you consider to be a 'primary' source?  'Fraid I don't have access to NASA managers :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 08/19/2010 04:53 am
Well, the only true 'primary' sources are NASA itself, NASA employees on the internet, and NASA documentation like NSF gets.  NASA itself will tell the truth, but may have spin.

Journalists are by definition 'secondary' sources.  Chris/NSF, JimO, Miles O'Brien, Space News, Harwood/CBS, Block/Orlando Sentinel, Florida Today, Houston Chronicle, Carreau (freelance), roughly in order.  Probably some others I'm leaving out.

Bloggers like NW fall in the mid-range of the journalists.  NW has too much opinion, but he has great sources.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 08/20/2010 08:21 am
Well, the only true 'primary' sources are NASA itself, NASA employees on the internet, and NASA documentation like NSF gets.  NASA itself will tell the truth, but may have spin.

Journalists are by definition 'secondary' sources.  Chris/NSF, JimO, Miles O'Brien, Space News, Harwood/CBS, Block/Orlando Sentinel, Florida Today, Houston Chronicle, Carreau (freelance), roughly in order.  Probably some others I'm leaving out.

Bloggers like NW fall in the mid-range of the journalists.  NW has too much opinion, but he has great sources.
Ok that sounds reasonable.  Looks like I'll have to rely on secondary and tertiary sources and keep an eye out for NASA managers on the web!!!

I hope that the COTS-C Demo1 goes well and they do allow Demo2 & 3 to be combined.  I think SpaceX deserves a bit of extra good fortune since they've really been pushing hard from all accounts.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 08/20/2010 08:28 pm
SFN update article on COTS1 Flight2, including recent Dragon drop test:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/100820update/
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 08/20/2010 09:28 pm
Flight Dragon is at the cape, along with both stages 'eh?

So much for paper and PowerPoint....
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: telomerase99 on 08/21/2010 12:50 am
Check out the video of the drop test!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7xbFpy5jbY&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 08/21/2010 02:55 pm
I love the various camera angles... I really hope we get a front row seat for the next mission not just for liftoff but for some of the orbit/descent as possible...

One thing I noticed is that it seems to be a very soft landing in the water... the base didn't SEEM to hit with much force at all and didn't bury itself deep in the water at the point of impact..... at first blush it seems like the parachutes provide a nice soft landing...



As Oliver would say to Mr. Musk......."More please"    :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 08/22/2010 04:38 am
We got this video pretty quick.  I like how we all get a ringside seat to this.

Go SpaceX!

VR
RE327
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 08/22/2010 10:13 am
Seems to me that with that low a rate of descent a land touchdown wouldn't require much from the thrusters or the landing gear - even with one 'chute gone.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Rhyshaelkan on 08/22/2010 07:44 pm
They better load the thing with barf-bags.  ;D

Well I suppose it stabilized nicely when the main chutes came out.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: zaitcev on 08/23/2010 07:23 pm
Seems to me that with that low a rate of descent a land touchdown wouldn't require much from the thrusters or the landing gear - even with one 'chute gone.
Unfortunately this also reduces the maximum allowable surface winds.
-- Pete
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: go2mars on 08/23/2010 08:34 pm
Seems to me that with that low a rate of descent a land touchdown wouldn't require much from the thrusters or the landing gear - even with one 'chute gone.
Unfortunately this also reduces the maximum allowable surface winds.
-- Pete

Maybe dragon could have a little mechanism cut the line on one of the chutes if it's really windy out.  That way astronauts would spend less time drifting away on the breeze.  Just tell the astronauts to sit on their pillow.  ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Olaf on 08/30/2010 03:23 pm
The newest lanch date October, 23rd 2010.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/08/30/07.xml&headline=SpaceX Asks For Oct. 23 Dragon Launch Slot
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: aquarius on 08/30/2010 05:18 pm
I'm surprised they want to do a tanking test and a static firing on the second F9 flight. I thought doing them on the first flight was enough.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Hauerg on 08/30/2010 05:26 pm
I'm surprised they want to do a tanking test and a static firing on the second F9 flight. I thought doing them on the first flight was enough.

"Supersafe" was the word Elon used IIRC.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/30/2010 07:27 pm
I'm surprised they want to do a tanking test and a static firing on the second F9 flight. I thought doing them on the first flight was enough.

"Supersafe" was the word Elon used IIRC.

Considering how much is riding on the COTS series of demo flights, I don't think that anyone can blame them for taking this attitude.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Halidon on 08/30/2010 09:28 pm

Considering how much is riding on the COTS series of demo flights, I don't think that anyone can blame them for taking this attitude.
In addition to being smart from the perspective of SpaceX's investment in this flight series, it's also another fact with which to hit back at the Congressional narrative that they're dangerous backyard hooligans.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 08/31/2010 12:45 am
It's also another chance for SpaceX to remind decision makers that competing solutions can't do a static fire test on the pad as easily as they can.  Their full-thrust hold-down and quick recycle capabilities are selling points. 

Remember that the first Falcon 9 launched an hour after a pad abort on engine start.  Just a week earlier, Delta IV had a 48-hour scrub turnaround after a late pad abort because they had to reload some pyro valves.  This contrast speaks to the robustness of the SpaceX architecture.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/31/2010 12:59 am
It's also another chance for SpaceX to remind decision makers that competing solutions can't do a static fire test on the pad as easily as they can.  Their full-thrust hold-down and quick recycle capabilities are selling points. 

Remember that the first Falcon 9 launched an hour after a pad abort on engine start.  Just a week earlier, Delta IV had a 48-hour scrub turnaround after a late pad abort because they had to reload some pyro valves.  This contrast speaks to the robustness of the SpaceX architecture.

Really does not matter with the small window for station flights.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 08/31/2010 02:01 am
It's also another chance for SpaceX to remind decision makers that competing solutions can't do a static fire test on the pad as easily as they can.  Their full-thrust hold-down and quick recycle capabilities are selling points. 

Remember that the first Falcon 9 launched an hour after a pad abort on engine start.  Just a week earlier, Delta IV had a 48-hour scrub turnaround after a late pad abort because they had to reload some pyro valves.  This contrast speaks to the robustness of the SpaceX architecture.

Really does not matter with the small window for station flights.

Actually think it does.  It's very early days for SpaceX so improvement in turnaround times is to be expected dependant on the issue.  Of course it's preferable not to have an abort in the first place and the 1st flight abort was due to narrow limits which have since been widened therefore unlikely to occur again.
SpaceX at least (unlike NASA) seems to learn from the past.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 08/31/2010 02:08 am
It's also another chance for SpaceX to remind decision makers that competing solutions can't do a static fire test on the pad as easily as they can.  Their full-thrust hold-down and quick recycle capabilities are selling points. 


Wrong on all accounts.

Delta IV did a static test on SLC-37.  Atlas could if it wanted to.

Both Atlas and Delta have full thrust hold downs.  Spacex's point about SRM;s is silly and meaningless.

Those who make the decisions are not swayed by these marketing spins.

These "features" would not even be part of the requirements for launch vehicle or crew launch procurement and as such would not be used in selecting a contractor.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 08/31/2010 02:10 am

Remember that the first Falcon 9 launched an hour after a pad abort on engine start.  Just a week earlier, Delta IV had a 48-hour scrub turnaround after a late pad abort because they had to reload some pyro valves.  This contrast speaks to the robustness of the SpaceX architecture.

48hr scrub is not a lack of robustness.

Again, these feature would not be used in any competition.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 08/31/2010 02:12 am
It's also another chance for SpaceX to remind decision makers that competing solutions can't do a static fire test on the pad as easily as they can.  Their full-thrust hold-down and quick recycle capabilities are selling points. 

Remember that the first Falcon 9 launched an hour after a pad abort on engine start.  Just a week earlier, Delta IV had a 48-hour scrub turnaround after a late pad abort because they had to reload some pyro valves.  This contrast speaks to the robustness of the SpaceX architecture.

Really does not matter with the small window for station flights.

Actually think it does.  It's very early days for SpaceX so improvement in turnaround times is to be expected dependant on the issue.  Of course it's preferable not to have an abort in the first place and the 1st flight abort was due to narrow limits which have since been widened therefore unlikely to occur again.
No, the scrub recycle does not matter.   It is unusable for NASA flights.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 08/31/2010 03:14 am
I can't think of any launch vehicle that would be so cavalier as to make a launch attempt without having done a tanking test first.  What a silly idea.

Certainly not a "human rated" one.

Aa-aa-aa-hhemmmmmm.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 08/31/2010 08:00 am
I can't think of any launch vehicle that would be so cavalier as to make a launch attempt without having done a tanking test first.  What a silly idea.

Certainly not a "human rated" one.

Aa-aa-aa-hhemmmmmm.

Good one. Gotta love them double standards, eh?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: zaitcev on 09/01/2010 05:39 am
Remember that the first Falcon 9 launched an hour after a pad abort on engine start.  Just a week earlier, Delta IV had a 48-hour scrub turnaround after a late pad abort because they had to reload some pyro valves.  This contrast speaks to the robustness of the SpaceX architecture.

Really does not matter with the small window for station flights.

Station windows occur every 12 hours, so a 48 hour delay is unpleasantly long. Also, ISS is not going to be the only station ever, hopefuly. Future stations may be located in more convenient orbits, especially if Soyuz is not used for transport.

-- Pete
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/01/2010 05:47 am
Station windows occur every 12 hours, so a 48 hour delay is unpleasantly long. Also, ISS is not going to be the only station ever, hopefuly. Future stations may be located in more convenient orbits, especially if Soyuz is not used for transport.

Since KSC cannot launch into an equatorial orbit, you'll have short launch windows for any space station that is reachable from KSC - no matter the orbit it is in. (Due to phasing)

While there might be a small difference, it should not matter that much, right?


Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/01/2010 11:33 am
Station windows occur every 12 hours, so a 48 hour delay is unpleasantly long. Also, ISS is not going to be the only station ever, hopefuly. Future stations may be located in more convenient orbits, especially if Soyuz is not used for transport.

Since KSC cannot launch into an equatorial orbit, you'll have short launch windows for any space station that is reachable from KSC - no matter the orbit it is in. (Due to phasing)

While there might be a small difference, it should not matter that much, right?


Not true, look at HST launch windows.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChefPat on 09/01/2010 04:36 pm
I'll make my prediction for launch on November 19. :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 09/01/2010 04:40 pm
Remember that the first Falcon 9 launched an hour after a pad abort on engine start.  Just a week earlier, Delta IV had a 48-hour scrub turnaround after a late pad abort because they had to reload some pyro valves.  This contrast speaks to the robustness of the SpaceX architecture.

Really does not matter with the small window for station flights.

Station windows occur every 12 hours

Incorrect. The southerly launch azimuth to ISS from KSC is placarded for range safety reasons. Station windows from KSC along the northerly launch azimuth occur every 24 hours. SpaceX will not get an exception for this.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 09/01/2010 04:43 pm
Station windows occur every 12 hours, so a 48 hour delay is unpleasantly long. Also, ISS is not going to be the only station ever, hopefuly. Future stations may be located in more convenient orbits, especially if Soyuz is not used for transport.

Since KSC cannot launch into an equatorial orbit, you'll have short launch windows for any space station that is reachable from KSC - no matter the orbit it is in. (Due to phasing)

While there might be a small difference, it should not matter that much, right?


Not true, look at HST launch windows.

Right, a station in an orbit near 28.5 inclination would allow a near due-east launch azimuth that would greatly expand the planar launch window, so the composite launch window winds up being driven by phasing (and is typically almost an hour long).

But for the existing ISS, the planar window will remain around 10 minutes, which pretty much negates SpaceX's quick scrub-turnaround capability.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 09/02/2010 03:16 am
Yes I guess it does pretty much.  Ok for a minor hold to check something but not much else.

Would other payloads have longer windows?  If that was so then a quick turnaround capability could be useful.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 09/02/2010 04:20 am
Yes I guess it does pretty much.  Ok for a minor hold to check something but not much else.

Would other payloads have longer windows?  If that was so then a quick turnaround capability could be useful.

Depends on the payload and whether you're talking deploy or rendezvous. For a payload deploy mission, the launch window can be much longer. For payload rendezvous missions, it's dependent on inclination, with low-inclination payload orbits (like HST) allowing a longer window.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 09/03/2010 12:46 am
Yes I guess it does pretty much.  Ok for a minor hold to check something but not much else.

Would other payloads have longer windows?  If that was so then a quick turnaround capability could be useful.

Depends on the payload and whether you're talking deploy or rendezvous. For a payload deploy mission, the launch window can be much longer. For payload rendezvous missions, it's dependent on inclination, with low-inclination payload orbits (like HST) allowing a longer window.

So effort on design for quick turnaround not a total waste and may be useful. 
The other aspect to this quick turnaround design approach (even if never used) would I think be simpler and more efficient systems generally.  This would be a natural consequence of looking at minimising the time taken to undertake any one activity or process which could in turn reduce launch costs.  Flow-on effect.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/03/2010 11:47 pm
Space News: "SpaceX Tweaking Falcon 9 Software for Upcoming Launch". (http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100903-spacex-tweaking-falcon-software-for-upcoming-launch.html)

“The second-stage roll is being fixed by changing the location of the [liquid oxygen] pump drain outlet to avoid chilling the hydraulic lines of the roll control actuator,”

So the roll control actuator didn't overheat, it froze? That's interesting. Also, I could have sworn it was electric, not hydraulic.

PS. OK, after reviewing the user guides again I see that the only electromechanical actuators SpaceX uses are for Falcon1 2nd stage/Kestral gimbaling.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 09/04/2010 12:55 am
What I found interesting in that Space News article is that flt-1was paid for by an un-named "government agency." Sounds like a bit of DoD "alternative funding" to me.

Last year SpaceX said that the military was interested in DragonLab and its optional manipulator arm for rendezvous missions, so it seems to fit that they'd help get Dragon & F9 off the ground.

Wonder what else isn't being said?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 09/04/2010 01:03 am
Aside from satelitte repair/inspection maybe we are looking at the  US Airforce being one of the first manned Dragon clients.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 09/04/2010 01:55 am
“The second-stage roll is being fixed by changing the location of the [liquid oxygen] pump drain outlet to avoid chilling the hydraulic lines of the roll control actuator,”

So the roll control actuator didn't overheat, it froze? That's interesting. Also, I could have sworn it was electric, not hydraulic.

PS. OK, after reviewing the user guides again I see that the only electromechanical actuators SpaceX uses are for Falcon1 2nd stage/Kestral gimbaling.

Yeah, the Merlin engines use pressurized RP-1 tapped off the turbopump outlet as the hydraulic fluid.  My understanding is that this is a unique innovation.  Most launch vehicles use a separate APU and pump system for hydraulics.  Kestrel is pressure-fed and therefore uses a different system for actuation.

So I guess the RP-1 froze in the hydraulic line like a clot where the line passed too close to the LOX drain, disabling the roll nozzle actuator.  RP-1 freezes at about -55F, so that scenario is not hard to imagine.  RP-1 also boils at about 395F, so the overheating scenario with radiant heat from the nozzle is also not too hard to imagine.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/04/2010 02:03 am
Aside from satelitte repair/inspection maybe we are looking at the  US Airforce being one of the first manned Dragon clients.

The USAF has no manned requirement.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/04/2010 02:10 am

Yeah, the Merlin engines use pressurized RP-1 tapped off the turbopump outlet as the hydraulic fluid.  My understanding is that this is a unique innovation.  Most launch vehicles use a separate APU and pump system for hydraulics.  Kestrel is pressure-fed and therefore uses a different system for actuation.


No, the F-1 did it the same way. 
Also, most don't use a separate APU (the few that do are the Redstone, STS and Soyuz), just separate hydraulic fluid.  The hydraulic pump is powered by either the turbopump shaft or using the gas generator
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: just-nick on 09/04/2010 04:04 am

Yeah, the Merlin engines use pressurized RP-1 tapped off the turbopump outlet as the hydraulic fluid.  My understanding is that this is a unique innovation.  Most launch vehicles use a separate APU and pump system for hydraulics.  Kestrel is pressure-fed and therefore uses a different system for actuation.


No, the F-1 did it the same way. 

Don't some of the big russians (RD-170-and-friends) also use fuel-as-hydraulic fluid?

I think confusion on separate hydraulic pump could come from the small electric circulation pumps to keep fluid temperature under control (older Centaurs before they went electromechanical, for example).

Cheers,

  --Nick
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 09/04/2010 01:34 pm
Yes, another virtue of hydrocarbon engines.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/04/2010 02:04 pm
“The second-stage roll is being fixed by changing the location of the [liquid oxygen] pump drain outlet to avoid chilling the hydraulic lines of the roll control actuator,”

This would be part of the Merlin turbopump, not the tank fill/drain valve seen in the video, right? Is that what was responsible for the gas efflux seen spraying the engine *above* the nozzle exit?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/04/2010 03:54 pm
This would be part of the Merlin turbopump, not the tank fill/drain valve seen in the video, right? Is that what was responsible for the gas efflux seen spraying the engine *above* the nozzle exit?

Are you referring to the T-shaped valve or vent by the GG exhaust nozzle, seen venting white gases to the left and right at MVac [EDIT: stage sep]? I wondered what that was, I thought it was something to do with the start-up sequence, as it seems to stop soon afterwards. Considering that the actuator doesn't 'freeze up' until later, maybe it (drain outlet) keeps venting and it's just hard to see because of the recirculating exhaust gases?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/04/2010 04:38 pm
No, I'm not referring to that. If you look closely after ignition, there's another source of GOX coming from somewhere in the lower left corner of the frame, behind the umbilical connectors. This venting persisted for the entire duration of the burn.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/04/2010 04:59 pm
Well...I see whitish gasses swirling around, coming from the direction you describe, but I really have no idea what or why this is.

Do you think this "drain outlet" vents to the outside of the vehicle through the interstage during 1st stage flight, and after stage sep is free to impinge on these hydraulic lines?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 09/07/2010 11:54 am

Yeah, the Merlin engines use pressurized RP-1 tapped off the turbopump outlet as the hydraulic fluid.  My understanding is that this is a unique innovation.  Most launch vehicles use a separate APU and pump system for hydraulics.  Kestrel is pressure-fed and therefore uses a different system for actuation.


No, the F-1 did it the same way. 

Don't some of the big russians (RD-170-and-friends) also use fuel-as-hydraulic fluid?

I think confusion on separate hydraulic pump could come from the small electric circulation pumps to keep fluid temperature under control (older Centaurs before they went electromechanical, for example).

Cheers,

  --Nick

I would bet most of the confusion lies with the wider public understanding of how Shuttle works (i.e., MMH powered APUs).

People who only follow space occasionally have still likely read or seen a detailed shuttle launch description.

* edited to correct "NTO" in the APU
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/07/2010 12:50 pm

I would bet most of the confusion lies with the wider public understanding of how Shuttle works (i.e., MMH/NTO powered APUs).


The shuttle APU's are hydrazine powered.  They have dedicated tanks separate from the OMS/RCS.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 09/07/2010 02:58 pm

I would bet most of the confusion lies with the wider public understanding of how Shuttle works (i.e., MMH/NTO powered APUs).


The shuttle APU's are hydrazine powered.  They have dedicated tanks separate from the OMS/RCS.

yep, oops.

Goes to show...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 09/10/2010 02:32 am
A few comments lately seem to indicate that NASA is more seriously considering combining COTS-C Demo's 2&3 if 1 goes well.  Would love to see that and even better, the first actual CRS delivery and return.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/10/2010 01:07 pm
Per SpaceX coverage on L2, they have officially got the range for that October 23 launch date.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/12/2010 04:34 pm
In an interview with the BBC last week, at the World Summit for Satellite Financing, Gwynne Shotwell says:

"...[COTS 1] is sitting on the range on October 23 and we'll launch it hopefully, actually before then, we're hoping to move to the left."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/09/the-big-rockets-jostle-for-mar.shtml

See the audio player halfway down the page, at about 0:50 in the recording.

Mark your calendars! (in pencil)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/14/2010 06:43 pm
hmm, looks like Falcon IX 2 is on the pad:
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/14/2010 06:45 pm
Not only that, it looks like the arm of the erector is open which could mean a tanking test is in progress.

EDIT: Yup, strongback retracting now. Could also mean an RF test with the range I suppose - remember the FTS signal problem.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2010 07:11 pm
hmm, looks like Falcon IX 2 is on the pad:
Woah! Didn't see that coming.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/14/2010 07:40 pm
Woah! Didn't see that coming.

That's what you get for not reading my posts! (kidding)

So, are the cameras on for good this time?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/14/2010 08:01 pm
Well, whatever test that was, it's over. The vehicle's coming down.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/14/2010 08:08 pm
I'm thinking that there might be some new umbilicals for Dragon, at least A/C anyway. Would they erect and lower the strongback to check these?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/14/2010 09:35 pm
It's nice to see the whole stack at least! Now if we could only get some up-close shots. :D
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/14/2010 09:44 pm
going up again
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: TheFallen on 09/15/2010 12:37 am
Falcon 9 at night
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/15/2010 12:47 am
hmm, looks like Falcon IX 2 is on the pad:

Falcon 9, not "IX", according to the manufacturer itself.
 http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

Roman numerals have been out of style since the 14th Century.  Nothing good can come from a number system that lacks a zero.  ;)   

- Ed Kyle
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 09/15/2010 01:13 am
hmm, looks like Falcon IX 2 is on the pad:

Falcon 9, not "IX", according to the manufacturer itself.
 http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

Roman numerals have been out of style since the 14th Century.  Nothing good can come from a number system that lacks a zero.  ;)   

- Ed Kyle

That's right.  No one would ever launch anything.   They'd all be stuck at one LOL
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/15/2010 01:16 am
hmm, looks like Falcon IX 2 is on the pad:

Falcon 9, not "IX", according to the manufacturer itself.
 http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

Roman numerals have been out of style since the 14th Century.  Nothing good can come from a number system that lacks a zero.  ;)   

- Ed Kyle

So I guess things like the Coliseum and the Parthenon are not good ;)

ok, enough engineering/history humor back on topic

So, I guess SpaceX is doing some kind of engineering test, wonder if this is simply to troubleshoot issues from flight 1, help to set up processing for a real payload, or will a lift be the equivalent of the Atlas V rolling back and forth to the VIF
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 09/15/2010 01:21 am
"So, I guess SpaceX is doing some kind of engineering test, wonder if this is simply to troubleshoot issues from flight 1, help to set up processing for a real payload, or will a lift be the equivalent of the Atlas V rolling back and forth to the VIF"

I can't say for sure but, looking at the long range pics, it looks like cargo Dragon has already been integrated with the Falcon 9. So I would consider Dragon a "real payload".
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/15/2010 01:27 am
I can't say for sure but, looking at the long range pics, it looks like cargo Dragon has already been integrated with the Falcon 9. So I would consider Dragon a "real payload".

I was referring to Flight one, with the boiler Dragon.  Even on the LV though, a payload needs care/umbilical.  Would not be surprised if SpaceX is checking the telemetry from Dragon on the pad.

Edit: Actually not, see L2 side
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=29.0
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 09/15/2010 03:18 am
So I would consider Dragon a "real payload".

Is it still a real payload if it's a zombie?  A real payload is not just metal and carbon.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/15/2010 03:22 am
So I would consider Dragon a "real payload".

Is it still a real payload if it's a zombie?  A real payload is not just metal and carbon.

Huh? Do you consider COTS demo 1 a "zombie"?  :o
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 09/15/2010 03:33 am
Where is this idea coming from that this is a zombie spacecraft? It has full propulsion and navigation can reenter and have a parachute landing. This is a real cargo spacecraft. The only difference is the fact that it will only do several orbits for lack of a service module containing the solar panels. Seems there's a movement to try to find every little variation to try to discredit Spacex and the Dragon cargo capsule. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 09/15/2010 03:39 am
You noticed that too 'eh?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/15/2010 03:40 am
I just wish that they'd work on getting the rig Man Rated.

     I know that the whole COTS is part of the process, but dang!  I wanna ride that bird!

Jason
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 09/15/2010 03:43 am
I'm not trying to discredit anything.  I'm trying to temper schedule expectations.  (Shrugs.)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/15/2010 03:51 am
I just wish that they'd work on getting the rig Man Rated.

They will, and this (and every Dragon cargo flight) is part of that process. I actually find it encouraging that they will be able to work out major bugs as a cargo craft before they put people on it.

(Not that it is the only way of doing things, of course - nor necessarily the fastest or best - but it fits their model)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 09/15/2010 04:34 am
hmm, looks like Falcon IX 2 is on the pad:

Falcon 9, not "IX", according to the manufacturer itself.
 http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

Roman numerals have been out of style since the 14th Century.

Or at least, 1972.

http://www.solcomhouse.com/images/ap17patch_bg.gif
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 09/15/2010 05:47 am
I just wish that they'd work on getting the rig Man Rated.

They will, and this (and every Dragon cargo flight) is part of that process. I actually find it encouraging that they will be able to work out major bugs as a cargo craft before they put people on it.

(Not that it is the only way of doing things, of course - nor necessarily the fastest or best - but it fits their model)

Wellll to an extent, the model's been foisted on them by the fact that NASA didn't fund COTS-D. 
SpaceX I'm sure is still working on DragonCrew but without additional funding and no likely contracts at this stage, there's no commercial incentive for them to do it. 
Cargo is different for them and it's their major focus since they have to meet milestones and validate their systems before they can start delivery under their ISS supply contract.
In addition, once they do that, they're validating a large part of their crew Dragon - just have to add several bits with the LES being the most expensive and complicated.
 
 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/15/2010 07:39 am
So I would consider Dragon a "real payload".

Is it still a real payload if it's a zombie?  A real payload is not just metal and carbon.

Huh? Do you consider COTS demo 1 a "zombie"?  :o

Zombie in the sense it potentially has no "brain" yet. The hardware is there, all right, but as was pointed out time and time again, without software that hardware is useless.

As such any testing related to the launch vehicle itself - which is ahead in the learning curve over Dragon - is meaningless as a tool to predict a launch date.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 09/15/2010 11:41 am
Don't forget that various HR requirements have to be met to allow ISS's crew to enter Dragon to retrieve the cargo.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/15/2010 11:48 am
Which is no issue because this particular Dragon is going nowhere near the ISS.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/15/2010 02:27 pm

Roman numerals have been out of style since the 14th Century.  Nothing good can come from a number system that lacks a zero.  ;)   

- Ed Kyle

Your right,  the zero-less calendar system we all use is completely hopeless ;) That must why SpaceX schedules are always so far off :D

btw. at the risk of being completely off topic,  Dick Teresi in "Lost Discoveries: The Multicultural Roots of Modern Science from the Babylonians to the Maya" dedicates a whole chapter (or was it two) to zero and how much we in the west did without it. Hint: Newton did not have use of a zero :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/15/2010 02:38 pm
Looks like the tanking test has started:
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 09/15/2010 05:54 pm
No more video of the second Falcon 9 for now.
They have switched over to some other rocket that may actually have a Roman numeral in its name.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 09/15/2010 06:13 pm
Processed & cropped....
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 09/15/2010 06:16 pm
Here is an image of Falcon 9 that I captured from KSC channel 12 at 1:14 PM (Eastern time):
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 09/15/2010 06:42 pm
Processing it brings out more vents....

(hope you guys don't mind my following up with these?)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/15/2010 07:13 pm
Those aren't vents... At least the top what lines on each side of the upper stage. Those are the upper 'arms' of the strongback in an open position, I think.

See image of the arms here: http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20090105_strongbackfull.jpg
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 09/15/2010 08:45 pm
Quote from: ugordan link=topic=22041.msg637102#msg637102 date=

Zombie in the sense it potentially has no "brain" yet. The hardware is there, all right, but as was pointed out time and time again, without software that hardware is useless.

As such any testing related to the launch vehicle itself - which is ahead in the learning curve over Dragon - is meaningless as a tool to predict a launch date.

Is this rumor that the software is not ready based on anything but rank speculation?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: R.Simko on 09/15/2010 08:57 pm
It's great that we have the zero, now if we were only fully utilizing the metric system.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 09/15/2010 08:58 pm
"Is this rumor that the software is not ready based on anything but rank speculation?"

Total rumor and based only on speculation of several members here.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Nikola on 09/15/2010 09:51 pm
Is this live or not?

http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php

(my apologies if it was already discussed, but I haven't been some time on the forum...)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/15/2010 10:01 pm
Is this rumor that the software is not ready based on anything but rank speculation?

A while back it was reported here by none other than Chris Bergin that SpaceX were "struggling" with software both for F9 and Dragon, though it was in a context of some other discussion.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/15/2010 10:02 pm
Is this live or not?

It sure as heck *looks* live.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mrhuggy on 09/15/2010 10:15 pm
Is this live or not?

It sure as heck *looks* live.

The clouds look like the match up with nasa's webcams.

I wonder if we are going to have a hotfire very soon. The cameras look to be setup for that and if so a launch on the original date of the 23rd of September?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/15/2010 10:21 pm
I wonder if we are going to have a hotfire very soon.

The vehicle's not iced over, not venting, the erector's not retracted, they're talking about pad safing with vehicles seen driving to the hangar so I'm gonna go with... no.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/15/2010 10:23 pm
Is this rumor that the software is not ready based on anything but rank speculation?

Well, rank speculation combined with the fact that nearly all software anywhere in the world tends to be late...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mrhuggy on 09/15/2010 10:51 pm
What I meant by very soon wasnt today but maybe later this week. Saying that no confirmed tanking tests yet, well as far as know. And they would also tell everyone before hand.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2010 02:16 am
"Is this rumor that the software is not ready based on anything but rank speculation?"

Total rumor and based only on speculation of several members here.

Incorrect.  There are several members with insight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 09/16/2010 05:19 am
And they would also tell everyone before hand.

Funniest thing I've read this month.  Do you have any rationale for that?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: TheFallen on 09/16/2010 05:41 am
What I meant by very soon wasnt today but maybe later this week.

I figured that's what you meant mrhuggy.  Would've pointed that out if you didn't.

Though I'm guessing October 23rd is the most likely launch date.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2010 01:22 pm
"Is this rumor that the software is not ready based on anything but rank speculation?"

Total rumor and based only on speculation of several members here.

Incorrect.  There are several members with insight.

Why would SpaceX launch a zombie spacecraft? If they are trying to convince NASA to combine COTS Demo 2 and 3, this would be the wrong approach. SpaceX also said that they were in no hurry to launch COTS Demo 1. So I doubt that they would launch a zombie (i.e. software deficient) spacecraft.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2010 01:28 pm
"Is this rumor that the software is not ready based on anything but rank speculation?"

Total rumor and based only on speculation of several members here.

Incorrect.  There are several members with insight.

Why would SpaceX launch a zombie spacecraft? If they are trying to convince NASA to combine COTS Demo 2 and 3, this would be the wrong approach. SpaceX also said that they were in no hurry to launch COTS Demo 1. So I doubt that they would launch a zombie (i.e. software deficient) spacecraft.

The point is readiness and launch date.  Nothing was said about launching a zombie spacecraft
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2010 02:26 pm
"Is this rumor that the software is not ready based on anything but rank speculation?"

Total rumor and based only on speculation of several members here.

Incorrect.  There are several members with insight.

Why would SpaceX launch a zombie spacecraft? If they are trying to convince NASA to combine COTS Demo 2 and 3, this would be the wrong approach. SpaceX also said that they were in no hurry to launch COTS Demo 1. So I doubt that they would launch a zombie (i.e. software deficient) spacecraft.

The point is readiness and launch date.  Nothing was said about launching a zombie spacecraft

That makes a lot of sense. Your point being that they are not launching soon despite the recent tests. I think that Elon Musk also made the same point that the readiness of Dragon (not Falcon 9) will be setting the launch date of COTS Demo 1.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/16/2010 02:38 pm
That makes a lot of sense. Your point being that they are not lauching soon despite the recent tests.

Once again, no one's actually saying here they are *not* launching "soon" or that the problem is still the software. I don't know how you people parse other people's posts, but some seem to get the wrong conclusions out of them.

All that was pointed out is that a LV fueling test is no indicator of payload readiness.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2010 02:53 pm
That makes a lot of sense. Your point being that they are not launching soon despite the recent tests.

Once again, no one's actually saying here they are *not* launching "soon" or that the problem is still the software. I don't know how you people parse other people's posts, but some seem to get the wrong conclusions out of them.

All that was pointed out is that a LV fueling test is no indicator of payload readiness.

Fair enough. But the zombie comment above made it sound like Dragon was a zombie spacecraft because of software problems. Glad to know this is probably not the case. Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 09/16/2010 10:40 pm
Update on Falcon 9 COTS-1. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/100916wdr/
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 09/16/2010 11:20 pm
"The company plans another practice countdown soon that will culminate in a brief ignition of the Falcon's nine Merlin first stage engines, but the spokesperson did not respond to questions on its schedule".

So it seems the next test will also be the test fire.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 09/17/2010 12:45 am
I wonder why they don't combine the tanking and static fire into one test at this point.  The incremental approach made sense for the maiden flight, but it doesn't seem appropriate going forward assuming that static fire will remain a part of the standard launch flow.  If they've got the launch vehicle tanked up nominally, they might as well go ahead and do the static fire.  Maybe they'll combine them for flight 3?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2010 12:50 am
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 09/17/2010 01:11 am
Article had some good tidbits but I wanted more pictures particularly of the dragon :) 
jb
BTW took me a while to figure out the acronyms..wet dress rehearsal and standard operating procedure..or I hope that is what they are :) 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 09/17/2010 01:23 am
Speaking of acronyms, what would SLS stand for:  Shuttle Launch System, Space Launch System??  I've seen it used a number of times but not explained.

Cheers.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Proponent on 09/17/2010 01:46 am
Speaking of acronyms, what would SLS stand for:  Shuttle Launch System, Space Launch System??

The Senate bill defines it as Space Launch System, though some prefer the term Senate Launch System :).
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 09/17/2010 02:29 am
Thanks
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/17/2010 02:47 am
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

Could they be doing it to test their torque-dampening mods?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 09/17/2010 03:53 am
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

Why is that?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: NotGncDude on 09/17/2010 04:30 am
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

That's Oldspace SOP. Newspace does static fires
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/17/2010 04:38 am
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

That's Oldspace SOP. Newspace does static fires

If so new space wastes more money than "old space."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: NotGncDude on 09/17/2010 04:49 am
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

That's Oldspace SOP. Newspace does static fires

If so new space wastes more money than "old space."

Nope. A static fire is worth more than several months of paper risk assessments.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Plasursci on 09/17/2010 09:56 am
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

They may stop doing static fires at some point, but they shouldn't do so just because it's standard-operating procedure for other vehicles. Their test plan will be based on what they deem necessary to verify that their vehicle is performing as designed.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 09/17/2010 04:24 pm
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles
That's Oldspace SOP. Newspace does static fires
If so new space wastes more money than "old space."
Nope. A static fire is worth more than several months of paper risk assessments.

What paper risk assessments?  You have a cynical and inaccurate view of vehicle processing.  The question is what does the static fire screen for?  And don't answer that, because anything other than nothing (which is accurate) is eyetar.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/17/2010 04:33 pm
What paper risk assessments?  You have a cynical and inaccurate view of vehicle processing.  The question is what does the static fire screen for?  And don't answer that, because anything other than nothing (which is accurate) is eyetar.

 ;D Do you know SpaceX's own hardware better than them? Then go tell them how to do it. They clearly have no clue what they are doing, just running tests for shits and giggles.  ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 09/17/2010 04:55 pm
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

Could they be doing it to test their torque-dampening mods?

I don't think they have a way to measure roll torque either on the pad or on the test stand.  Otherwise they would have tuned it out beforehand.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: NotGncDude on 09/17/2010 05:45 pm
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles
That's Oldspace SOP. Newspace does static fires
If so new space wastes more money than "old space."
Nope. A static fire is worth more than several months of paper risk assessments.

What paper risk assessments?  You have a cynical and inaccurate view of vehicle processing.  The question is what does the static fire screen for?  And don't answer that, because anything other than nothing (which is accurate) is eyetar.

I think *you* have an inaccurate view of vehicle processing. A static fire gets you a lot of information (way more than nothing) about the stack you are about to fly very cheaply. Nobody else does it ... because they can't.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/17/2010 05:50 pm
A static fire gets you a lot of information (way more than nothing) about the stack you are about to fly very cheaply.

How different is that firing from the two extended burns on the VTS in Texas and where do you think is the point of diminishing returns on finding out anything useful with the pad static firings?

They already have two data points on SLC-40, one static firing and an actual launch. Another static test cannot add *that* much to the table.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: simonbp on 09/17/2010 07:28 pm
They already have two data points on SLC-40, one static firing and an actual launch. Another static test cannot add *that* much to the table.

Ah, but you're assuming that there have been no changes since the first flight. However, the software in Falcon 9 has almost certainly been updated since the first flight, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were also numerous mechanical tweaks. So, tanking tests and static fires allow them to test the tweaks, to make sure they don't break something else.

In other words it's a reminder that Falcon 9 is not a finished, full-operational rocket, and so is not following what others may define as a Standard Operational Procedure.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/17/2010 07:49 pm
However, the software in Falcon 9 has almost certainly been updated since the first flight, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were also numerous mechanical tweaks.

Which of the two couldn't have been tested in integrated stage tests in Texas? Why would engine roll bias software tweaks need a static firing?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cheesybagel on 09/17/2010 07:55 pm
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

Falcon 9 has nine first stage engines. The first stage is substantially more complex than your average first stage. Anything that can test the first stage before a full flight reduces risk. What you are proposing is the same course of action used by the Russians for N1.

If the rocket blew up on the launch pad how much would you have saved by skimping on testing?

What you are proposing is the US auto manufacturer standard operating procedure. Saving money by reducing testing of subcomponents. The same policy which has lead GM to near bankruptcy. The truth is the earlier in the production chain you find an issue, the cheaper it is to solve it, plus you get more reliable hardware with more customer value.

The way to reduce costs for SpaceX will be to judiciously reduce the number of parts and manufacturing steps, or reusing their rockets, not skimping on testing.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/17/2010 08:02 pm
What you are proposing is the same course of action used by the Russians for N1.

Uh, no. You are aware this flight stage accumulated 40 + 90 seconds of test stand firing + probably another 20 s of individual engine acceptance test firings? Much more than EELV engines go through, not to mention the fact there are no integrated stage firings there.

A far cry from N1 which couldn't afford a single ground test.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ngilmore on 09/17/2010 08:08 pm
The same policy which has lead GM to near bankruptcy.

Check your calendar. Both GM and Chrysler went through bankruptcy in 2009. Unless you are predicting another bankruptcy...
 8)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cheesybagel on 09/17/2010 08:09 pm
What you are proposing is the same course of action used by the Russians for N1.

Uh, no. You are aware this flight stage accumulated 40 + 90 seconds of test stand firing + probably another 20 s of individual engine acceptance test firings? Much more than EELV engines go through, not to mention the fact there are no integrated stage firings there.

A far cry from N1 which couldn't afford a single ground test.

It does not take a lot of thinking to realize the stage could be damaged during transport from Texas to Florida. All it takes is a loose bolt or corroded nut.

Delta IV has one single first stage engine. Atlas V has a single first stage engine with two nozzles. Falcon 9 has nine first stage engines. Plus the associated tanks, plumbing, and control systems.

Another thing that can happen is different launch environments in Texas and Florida. Just because something works in the Texas test stand, it does not mean it will work in the Florida launch site. There were plenty of occurrences of issues like this during the static test firing campaign for the first Falcon 9.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: marsavian on 09/17/2010 08:37 pm
Inside SpaceX: Dragon Debut

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1438
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/17/2010 09:03 pm
Inside SpaceX: Dragon Debut

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1438

Sweet, the first COTS demo 1 Dragon image from the article: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/IMG_8390_KenKremer.jpg
(Interesting Draco covers, perhaps temporary until launch)

Some quotes from the article, regarding earlier speculation in this thread:
Quote
SpaceX engineers told me that the next step is to remove the Dragon from the Falcon 9 and place it on a processing cradle. At some point in early October, the spacecraft will be fueled with hypergolics - monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide - retested and then reattached to the Falcon 9 booster. Fueling will only be done after confirming the launch date due to the toxic nature of the propellants.

In mid-October, a static test firing of all 9 Merlin first stage engines will be conducted with an expected duration of three to five seconds - similarly to tests run by SpaceX prior to the first Falcon 9 launch. The test firing is planned for roughly a week prior to the actual launch, SpaceX engineers said to me.

The goal of the static firing is to test launch pad propellant and pneumatic systems as well as the ground and flight control software that controls pad and launch vehicle configurations and assure that all systems are "GO" in expectation of a launch
.

Quote
SpaceX hopes to establish a Falcon 9 launch rate at pad 40 that supports approximately 12 liftoffs per year or one per month.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/17/2010 10:23 pm
They already have two data points on SLC-40, one static firing and an actual launch. Another static test cannot add *that* much to the table.

Ah, but you're assuming that there have been no changes since the first flight. However, the software in Falcon 9 has almost certainly been updated since the first flight, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were also numerous mechanical tweaks. So, tanking tests and static fires allow them to test the tweaks, to make sure they don't break something else.

In other words it's a reminder that Falcon 9 is not a finished, full-operational rocket, and so is not following what others may define as a Standard Operational Procedure.

Yes, but what is so different between the testing environment in Texas? All these changes can be tried on the test stand, all WDR does is look good for the cameras.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/17/2010 10:51 pm
You guys are forgetting about the first F9 hot-fire abort back on March 9th:

"We tested everything on the vehicle side exhaustively in Texas, but didn't have this iso valve on our test stand there"

Even small things can make a big difference.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 09/18/2010 01:00 am
1) A static fire gets you a lot of information (way more than nothing) about the stack you are about to fly very cheaply.

2) Nobody else does it ... because they can't.

1) There are far better, safer and cheaper ways to do it.  If something got damaged in transport, then they have bad transportation practices.

If they're testing the rocket, they should have done that at the test stand.  If they're testing the pad, they don't need the rocket to do that.  If they're testing the integrated system... oh wait, Falcon 1 1-3 proved they need to work on that.

2) That's completely inaccurate.  Please post true facts.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/18/2010 01:48 am
Geez, I guess NASA are/were idiots for running pad hotfire tests too, then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUHLdJsoUOE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_A-1OpY8Vw

The more progress SpaceX makes, the more bizarre and/or irrational the detractors become.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2010 03:22 am
\

I think *you* have an inaccurate view of vehicle processing. A static fire gets you a lot of information (way more than nothing) about the stack you are about to fly very cheaply. Nobody else does it ... because they can't.


Wrong on all accounts.
a.  Antares knows what he is talking about
b.  Static fires are not cheap and are more risky to hardware
c.  Others can do static fires but chose not to
d.  Static fires are unnecessary with good system engineering, good workmanship and good design.
e.  Static fires are development tests and not operational tests
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2010 03:24 am
They already have two data points on SLC-40, one static firing and an actual launch. Another static test cannot add *that* much to the table.

Ah, but you're assuming that there have been no changes since the first flight. However, the software in Falcon 9 has almost certainly been updated since the first flight, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were also numerous mechanical tweaks. So, tanking tests and static fires allow them to test the tweaks, to make sure they don't break something else.

In other words it's a reminder that Falcon 9 is not a finished, full-operational rocket, and so is not following what others may define as a Standard Operational Procedure.

Static fires are not for software testing.  They are only for propulsion system testing
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2010 03:27 am
Geez, I guess NASA are/were idiots for running pad hotfire tests too, then?

The more progress SpaceX makes, the more bizarre and/or irrational the detractors become.

Bad examples.  All new orbiters did a FRF and there was one for RTF


Who are the detractors?

Static fires for ELV are unnecessary especially if the stage has be hot fired
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2010 03:31 am
the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

Falcon 9 has nine first stage engines. The first stage is substantially more complex than your average first stage. Anything that can test the first stage before a full flight reduces risk. What you are proposing is the same course of action used by the Russians for N1.

If the rocket blew up on the launch pad how much would you have saved by skimping on testing?

What you are proposing is the US auto manufacturer standard operating procedure. Saving money by reducing testing of subcomponents. The same policy which has lead GM to near bankruptcy. The truth is the earlier in the production chain you find an issue, the cheaper it is to solve it, plus you get more reliable hardware with more customer value.

The way to reduce costs for SpaceX will be to judiciously reduce the number of parts and manufacturing steps, or reusing their rockets, not skimping on testing.


Wrong, the N1 did no development testing.  This is past that stage.

The stage was already hot fired.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/18/2010 03:33 am
Bad examples.  All new orbiters did a FRF and there was one for RTF

Well I think the point is, NASA determined the orbiters needed that. This is a new vehicle and SpaceX determined they needed that. I think they know their vehicle best, and a static fire while maybe not standard on other similar class vehicles is hardly an abnormal type of test.

Static fires for ELV are unnecessary especially if the stage has be hot fired

1. They don't want it to be expendable, they want to recover the first stage.

2. And even if it has been hot fired, there were tweaks to their system to eliminate roll off the pad. Perhaps they want to test pad loads or something. Also they had a problem previously with their test stand not having the exact same configuration as the pad. What's wrong with being extra careful knowing there is precedent for issues there?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2010 03:38 am

Another thing that can happen is different launch environments in Texas and Florida. Just because something works in the Texas test stand, it does not mean it will work in the Florida launch site. There were plenty of occurrences of issues like this during the static test firing campaign for the first Falcon 9.


wrong, that is bad logic and would mean that spacex has bad engineering.

Because something works in the Texas test stand, it does mean it will work in the Florida launch site.
That is the reason for the test stand in TX, otherwise eliminate the stand in TX and use FL for everything.

+19 EELVs with only 1 pad test firings
+100 Delta II's with none

WDR's with off pad testing does everything necessary
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/18/2010 03:41 am
wrong, that is bad logic and would mean that spacex has bad engineering.

It doesn't necessarily mean their entire system is faulty, it could just mean they made a minor mistake, such as they uncovered in the previous flight.

Because something works in the Texas test stand, it does mean it will work in the Florida launch site.
That is the reason for the test stand in TX

Of course it is. But what your logic is saying is that if they didn't get it 100% right the first time (which they found out they didn't on the last flight) then they should just scrap the whole thing, which is absurd.

They had a minor mistake last time, hopefully they've corrected it now so the environments are identical. Doing a static firing as an extra verification that that is the case is a perfectly reasonable procedure.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2010 03:41 am

1.  other similar class vehicles is hardly an abnormal type of test.


2. They don't want it to be expendable, they want to recover the first stage.

3. And even if it has been hot fired, there were tweaks to their system to eliminate roll off the pad. Perhaps they want to test pad loads or something. Also they had a problem previously with their test stand not having the exact same configuration as the pad. What's wrong with being extra careful knowing there is precedent for issues there?

1.  Yes it is abnormal.  Any more than one is

2.  That has nothing to do with it

3. roll can't be fixed by static firing.  Test pad loads used weights and hydraulic cylinders.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/18/2010 03:48 am
I don't know why they are doing it. I'm just saying I think you are being a bit presumptuous to take the opinion that there could be no valid reason whatsoever for them doing it.

During the last flights static fire they uncovered a valve issue which was different from the test stand. So there is precedent for this procedure uncovering problems for them.

If they continue to do it and find no more issues, perhaps they will drop it on future flights. But there's nothing wrong with being extra cautious towards the beginning with the vehicle's history so new.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 09/18/2010 04:18 pm
1) There are valid reasons, but the trade is poor.  I mean, there's ALWAYS something more that could be done.  But every step has a cost.  There are cheaper (albeit less foolproof) ways to do what they're doing.  The increase in mission success for an on-pad static fire and some of the other things they do are negligible IMEO.

2) That was a first-use issue, which could have been uncovered in ways that did not risk the flight hardware.  There shouldn't be other similar problems this time, though I grant that all launch systems need a 3-4 flows to shake things down.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/18/2010 04:50 pm
I think that one thing to remember is that Falcon-9 Flight-2 is not a flight by a mature launch vehicle by a mature space launch organisation.  SpaceX are still feeling their way on some things, including debugging their LVs.  So, understandably, they're doing as many tests as possible in an attempt to ensure (as far as this can be ensured) that they won't lose possibly a year because of a launch failure on this mission.

Test fires will probably vanish from the schedule after they have developed more confidence in the vehicle and their own proceedures.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 09/18/2010 05:23 pm
Static fires are not for software testing.  They are only for propulsion system testing

Could this be a test of the Vibration/Acoustic environment that the Dragon will experience?  You would think that this information could have been collected from the 1st launch, but if as you say, the test serves to purpose for the launcher it' has to be the payload right?

I have a hard time belieiving that SpaceX does not have folks just as smart as Jim & Antares working for them, so they must know this test is not needed for the launcher, no way they are just doing this for the fun of it.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/18/2010 05:26 pm
Static fires are not for software testing.  They are only for propulsion system testing

End to end is further than you think <-- software testing maxim.

Not saying that is the reason in this case.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: R.Simko on 09/18/2010 06:06 pm
Before the first flight of Falcon 9 Elon talked about the importance of that first flight and that they were going to do as much testing as possible.  I'm sure that flights 1-3 of Falcon one was in his mind.  This second flight and first COTS test flight could be considdered every bit as important.  SpaceX needs a very good flight, if they are going to have any chance of having COTS test flights 2 and 3 combined into a single flight, thereby saving them time and money.

There might be some concerns with changes they have made since F9 flight one, or SpaceX might see it as just one more precaution to take.  I agree with Ben and others, that this test will eventually be eliminated.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 09/18/2010 08:53 pm
Here is a link to a Spaceref.com article that includes the first picture of the Dragon cargo capsule along with some pictures of the 2nd Falcon 9.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1438
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: simonbp on 09/18/2010 11:02 pm
+19 EELVs with only 1 pad test firings
+100 Delta II's with none

+1 Delta IV H that failed due to software on first flight
+1 Delta III that failed due to software on first flight
+1 Ariane V that failed due to software on first flight

Notice a trend?

And yes, static fires do provide info for the GNC folks, especially on Falcon 9 where guidance is through differential thrust (unlike Delta or Atlas)...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/18/2010 11:10 pm
+1 Delta IV H that failed due to software on first flight

Really?

Quote
And yes, static fires do provide info for the GNC folks, especially on Falcon 9 where guidance is through differential thrust (unlike Delta or Atlas)...

???
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/18/2010 11:55 pm
+1 Delta IV H that failed due to software on first flight

Really?


Even Wiki lists it as:

Due to Cavitation in the propellant lines causing sensors registered depletion of propellant. The strap-on, and later core CBC engines shut down prematurely.

Yes it was a software commanded shutdown, but it had a real hardware based cause.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/19/2010 12:00 am
+19 EELVs with only 1 pad test firings
+100 Delta II's with none

+1 Delta IV H that failed due to software on first flight
+1 Delta III that failed due to software on first flight
+1 Ariane V that failed due to software on first flight

Notice a trend?

And yes, static fires do provide info for the GNC folks, especially on Falcon 9 where guidance is through differential thrust (unlike Delta or Atlas)...

I don't think so... All 9 engines gimbal. (at least the outer 8 do) - doing differential thrust would cause too much of a payload penalty, but I could be wrong. The Merlin 1C's in the F9 1st stage are designed to run at full thrust for the entire running time. They even shut off two engines before MECO instead of throttling down.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/19/2010 12:37 am
Yes it was a software commanded shutdown, but it had a real hardware based cause.

In other words, the software acted as expected. The D-IVH premature shutdowns were not software faults.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/19/2010 03:51 am
Static fires are not for software testing.  They are only for propulsion system testing

End to end is further than you think <-- software testing maxim.

Not saying that is the reason in this case.

flight software is not tested in static firing, the vehicle is not moving
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/19/2010 03:54 am
+19 EELVs with only 1 pad test firings
+100 Delta II's with none

+1 Delta IV H that failed due to software on first flight
+1 Delta III that failed due to software on first flight
+1 Ariane V that failed due to software on first flight

Notice a trend?

And yes, static fires do provide info for the GNC folks, especially on Falcon 9 where guidance is through differential thrust (unlike Delta or Atlas)...

Incorrect.  GNC software is not tested with static fires.  None of those errors would have been uncovered with a static fire. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/19/2010 09:35 am
flight software is not tested in static firing, the vehicle is not moving

I don't understand the logic. Obviously the flight software has been thoroughly and continually tested since long before the static test (and if they're doing it right even before it was written). And obviously there any many important areas that don't get tested with a static test. But every test helps. The vehicle still shakes, sensors are measuring things, valves move. Things could possibly go wrong at this stage. And those are the things you test for. Again, I'm not saying this is their reason and I'm not saying other companies are doing it wrong. I'm just saying that as a software guy I would consider such a test valuable. Depending on the cost of such a test, which I don't know, it may or may not be worth it.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/19/2010 03:02 pm
flight software is not tested in static firing, the vehicle is not moving

I don't understand the logic. Obviously the flight software has been thoroughly and continually tested since long before the static test (and if they're doing it right even before it was written). And obviously there any many important areas that don't get tested with a static test. But every test helps. The vehicle still shakes, sensors are measuring things, valves move. Things could possibly go wrong at this stage. And those are the things you test for. Again, I'm not saying this is their reason and I'm not saying other companies are doing it wrong. I'm just saying that as a software guy I would consider such a test valuable. Depending on the cost of such a test, which I don't know, it may or may not be worth it.

I.  non flight software is usually use for static tests.
2.  Most sensors on a vehicle are not used in the  guidance (flight) software, the data is just telemetered to the ground.
3.  There is very little of the guidance software that deals with the propulsion system.  Other than thrust chamber ok switches/chamber pressures and occasionally propellant utilization, there is little interaction of the flight software with the rest of the vehicle.

4.  Guidance (flight) software steers the vehicle and controls events.  Most vehicles have separate engine controllers that operate the engine.  The guidance system only issues start, shutdown and throttle level commands. The engine controller does all the other necessary computations for valve movements.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 09/19/2010 06:56 pm
The Delta III wasn't a (edit:) testable software problem either.  Sheesh, Simon, I usually disagree with you on policies; but you did yourself no favors with that post.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/19/2010 07:10 pm
I.  non flight software is usually use for static tests.
2.  Most sensors on a vehicle are not used in the  guidance (flight) software, the data is just telemetered to the ground.
3.  There is very little of the guidance software that deals with the propulsion system.  Other than thrust chamber ok switches/chamber pressures and occasionally propellant utilization, there is little interaction of the flight software with the rest of the vehicle.

4.  Guidance (flight) software steers the vehicle and controls events.  Most vehicles have separate engine controllers that operate the engine.  The guidance system only issues start, shutdown and throttle level commands. The engine controller does all the other necessary computations for valve movements.

Thanks for that detailed information! About the software for the engine controller: in a vertically integrated company like SpaceX, is there a particular reason for the engine controller to be physically located on the engine? Couldn't the controller be run on the same processor as the flight software? It's software after all.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kkattula on 09/20/2010 04:36 am
Quote from: mmeijeri
Thanks for that detailed information! About the software for the engine controller: in a vertically integrated company like SpaceX, is there a particular reason for the engine controller to be physically located on the engine? Couldn't the controller be run on the same processor as the flight software? It's software after all.

There are multiple sensor inputs and actuator outputs to each engine.
Why would you run all those lines back to the LV guidance computer?

IIRC, each Merlin has just one ethernet connection plus power from the batteries.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 09/20/2010 06:05 am
Sweet, the first COTS demo 1 Dragon image from the article: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/IMG_8390_KenKremer.jpg
(Interesting Draco covers, perhaps temporary until launch)

The shielding of the shroud lines for the parachutes appears quite different than on the drop-test Dragon.  I was wondering what they would do to make those sharp edge protrusions compatible with the supersonic portions of the launch.  It seems they have dramatically reduce the profiles.

I still wonder why SpaceX is putting so much effort into recovering this first operational Dragon.  It's not mandatory for COTS or CRS.

And perhaps those covers on the Draco's aren't "remove before flight" types.  I don't see any red tags or other indicators that they are non-flight.


(Now you can all go back to debating the wisdom of a static fire  :D)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/20/2010 06:40 am
I still wonder why SpaceX is putting so much effort into recovering this first operational Dragon.  It's not mandatory for COTS or CRS.

But it is. Dragon is supposed to provide down-mass capability - and you can't do that without recovering the capsule, can you? And the want to test as much as they can in this flight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/20/2010 10:42 am
There are multiple sensor inputs and actuator outputs to each engine.
Why would you run all those lines back to the LV guidance computer?

No special reason, just wondering why they split the software up that way. If you're using engines made by someone else then that's logical enough, but if it's all in-house, why not run it on a single (or redundant...) flight computer? I'm not saying they should, just curious about the reasons why they don't. Would there be any advantage if you could move the processor away from the heat and vibration of the engines?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/20/2010 10:47 am
Would there be any advantage if you could move the processor away from the heat and vibration of the engines?

And greatly complicate the cabling for all sensors, valves to run all the way through to the top of the vehicle? It's a better defined and more manageable unit. There's a good reason it was done this way. Guidance software and engine control software are different beasts anyway as Jim said, so I'm not sure what merging them into a single place would accomplish.

Instead of a centralized ethernet interface they now have toward the flight computer you would need to convert each separate analog electrical sensor outputs to digital ethernet frames before sending them to the flight computer. Sending analog signals over 50 meters of cabling will mess A/D conversion there due to resistance losses, parasitic inductance, capacitance etc. Once you have a A/D converter for the sensors right in the engine and a box to pack that into an ethernet frame, you have yourself a... wait for it... engine controller.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/20/2010 12:11 pm
The shielding of the shroud lines for the parachutes appears quite different than on the drop-test Dragon.  I was wondering what they would do to make those sharp edge protrusions compatible with the supersonic portions of the launch.  It seems they have dramatically reduce the profiles.

The Dragon drop test article was missing most of its backshell TPS for that test. Only the areas surrounding or over the drogue and main parachute riser troughs, mortar tubes and main 'chute compartment had any. In the latest picture, the rest of the backshell has been added, so it has a 'smoother' appearance. Also, only two pieces (developmental?) of the heatshield were attached, one edge/lip piece bordering the main 'chute compartment, and another directly opposite on the (splashdown) leading edge.

From the available SpaceX literature, the backshell TPS is made of or partially made of a material called Acusil 2. I've tried to search and find out more about this material, but I haven't had much luck. It is a thermal insulator that appears to have a stiff, brittle, foam like consistency. It's a little hard to tell from the video, it seems as if the drogue risers rip right through it on deployment, like pulling the string on a bag of dog food.

If anyone knows more about, or has worked with this material, I'd appreciate any info.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/20/2010 01:56 pm
From the available SpaceX literature, the backshell TPS is made of or partially made of a material called Acusil 2. [...]

If anyone knows more about, or has worked with this material, I'd appreciate any info.

A search turned up the following info about the Acusil II material:

European Patent Application: EP2141070 Thermal barrier system
Publication date Jan 6, 2010
Assignee: ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc

"[...] An example material for use in constructing the panels of the barrier system is a silicone material, such as a silicone syntactic foam material. A preferred silicone syntactic foam material that is used to form the panels of the thermal barrier system is commercially available under the trademark ACUSIL or ACUSIL II (ITT Corporation, New York).

The silicone syntactic foam material comprises a matrix of hollow silicone structures, e.g., microspheres, that are combined and/or fused together. The syntactic foam structure provides a low density, lightweight characteristic for the material while having a low thermal conductivity due to the physical nature of the silicone material and also the air content within the microsphere structures. A suitable silicone syntactic foam material (e.g., an ACUSIL material) can be selected so as to have a thermal conductivity within the range from about 0.050 - 0.055 W/(m*K) (e.g., about 0.053 W/(m*K)) and a density from about 15 lb/ft3 (about 240 kg/m3 ) to about 17 lb/ft3 (about 272 kg/m3 ). In addition, in an example embodiment the microspheres within the syntactic foam material are in the range from about 55 micrometers (microns) to about 70 microns."


http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2141070.html (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2141070.html)

This paper from LaRC/Ames also has some information about this material:

Aerothermodynamic Design of the Mars Science Laboratory Backshell and Parachute Cone

"ITT-Aerotherm's Acusil II is a silicone foam material that was chosen to protect the BIP and PCC because it permits radio frequency transmission and can be molded to cover complex surface geometries; the material is frequently used for tactical missile applications. There are multiple antennas inside the PCC that must be able to transmit signals before the PCC is ejected at supersonic parachute deployment. Variable Acusil II thicknesses were tailored to the design environments presented here in order to maintain acceptable bondline temperatures for various elements.6 Acusil II does not ablate for heat fluxes below 100 W/cm2, which is well above what MSL will experience."

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090024230_2009023822.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090024230_2009023822.pdf)

Hope this is of interest.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 09/20/2010 02:23 pm
Here is a link to a Spaceref.com article that includes the first picture of the Dragon cargo capsule along with some pictures of the 2nd Falcon 9.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1438

Quote
The goal of the static firing is to test launch pad propellant and pneumatic systems as well as the ground and flight control software that controls pad and launch vehicle configurations and assure that all systems are "GO" in expectation of a launch.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 09/20/2010 02:48 pm
Comga - "still wonder why SpaceX is putting so much effort into recovering this first operational Dragon.  It's not mandatory for COTS or CRS. And perhaps those covers on the Draco's aren't "remove before flight" types.  I don't see any red tags or other indicators that they are non-flight".

Don't call me an expert but, if you are going to do a thuster test in flight, you probably need to remove the caps before launch.   
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 09/20/2010 02:52 pm
Don't call me an expert but, if you are going to do a thuster test in flight, you probably need to remove the caps before launch.   

Yeah, I guess it's too late for that now...  ::)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 09/20/2010 05:06 pm
How strong is Spacex's assembly building at the cape? It now houses the Dragon capsule and Falcon 9. How would it hold up against hurricane force winds?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/20/2010 05:17 pm
How strong is Spacex's assembly building at the cape? It now houses the Dragon capsule and Falcon 9. How would it hold up against hurricane force winds?

According to this news story: http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/01/falcon-9-up-then-down-at-lc-40.shtml

Quote
"The Falcon 9 can be raised and lowered quickly, so the company's hurricane plan is to lower the rocket and roll it into the hangar if a storm approaches. The hangar is built to withstand winds up to 135 mph."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/20/2010 05:47 pm
Quote
"The Falcon 9 can be raised and lowered quickly, so the company's hurricane plan is to lower the rocket and roll it into the hangar if a storm approaches. The hangar is built to withstand winds up to 135 mph."

A Category 3 direct hit, Category 4 is winds of 131mph to 155mph, but would it survive the storm surge from something that large? Me thinks a hurricane that large would float the whole kit and caboodle out to sea.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/20/2010 06:32 pm
Hope this is of interest.

Yes it is, thank you.

You did better than I did, I couldn't even find the manufacturer. Most of my searches came up with:
"Cure your diabetes and bursitis with ACUSIL 2!!" 

Now I'd like to know if there is a generic name for this stuff; it seems to be used on many re-entry vehicles.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/20/2010 06:35 pm
Don't call me an expert but,   

....must....resist...(gasping).....urge......to....snark....(death rattle)....
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 09/20/2010 07:27 pm
Comga - "And perhaps those covers on the Draco's aren't "remove before flight" types.  I don't see any red tags or other indicators that they are non-flight".

Don't call me an expert but, if you are going to do a thuster test in flight, you probably need to remove the caps before launch.   

Your wish is granted.  I won't call you an expert.

The question may be rephrased as why color the covers white to match the vehicle if you want them to stand out for visible indication that they have been removed?  One would think they would stencil in bright letters "NOT READY FOR FLIGHT" if they needed to be removed.  Normally you put a big red tag on things like that but perhaps they don't want tags flapping during the static firing.

There are other ways to open covers than to have them removed by hand.  They could pop off.   They could be actuated doors, which would also prevent being flooded with seawater after landing and exposure to airflow during reentry, although I have no knowledge if that or any other method is practical for these locations and criticality.  I am not suggesting they do anything, as no one cares or should care what I think SHOULD happen.  I am just asking a question about why things appear as they do.  We have smart people here who know things like this.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 09/20/2010 07:34 pm
I still wonder why SpaceX is putting so much effort into recovering this first operational Dragon.  It's not mandatory for COTS or CRS.

But it is. Dragon is supposed to provide down-mass capability - and you can't do that without recovering the capsule, can you? And the want to test as much as they can in this flight.

Does the CRS contract include downmass?  I know that is a SpaceX goal, and a quite reasonable one for their long term plans, but is it part of CRS or COTS for which they are being paid?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/20/2010 08:14 pm
The question may be rephrased as why color the covers white to match the vehicle if you want them to stand out for visible indication that they have been removed?  One would think they would stencil in bright letters "NOT READY FOR FLIGHT" if they needed to be removed.  Normally you put a big red tag on things like that but perhaps they don't want tags flapping during the static firing.

There are other ways to open covers than to have them removed by hand.  They could pop off.   They could be actuated doors, which would also prevent being flooded with seawater after landing and exposure to airflow during reentry, although I have no knowledge if that or any other method is practical for these locations and criticality.  I am not suggesting they do anything, as no one cares or should care what I think SHOULD happen.  I am just asking a question about why things appear as they do.  We have smart people here who know things like this.

I think you're right, in that we shouldn't assume that they will be removed before flight.

In an earlier SpaceX update, from before F9 flight1, SpaceX was preparing the Dragon qual unit with "test Draco thruster housings", presumably to gather aerodynamic data in flight. These were later deleted from the final Dragon flight article. So, that might be a hint as to whether or not these covers are removed before flight or not.

To compare, and unless I'm mistaken, shuttle RCS tyvek covers are designed to 'blow-off' after lift off.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 09/20/2010 08:53 pm
I still wonder why SpaceX is putting so much effort into recovering this first operational Dragon.  It's not mandatory for COTS or CRS.

But it is. Dragon is supposed to provide down-mass capability - and you can't do that without recovering the capsule, can you? And the want to test as much as they can in this flight.

Does the CRS contract include downmass?  I know that is a SpaceX goal, and a quite reasonable one for their long term plans, but is it part of CRS or COTS for which they are being paid?

Cargo return downmass is an option under the SpaceX CRS contract (see page 5 of the document -which is page 7 of the PDF, see also the index on page 1 -which is page 3 of the PDF):

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/418857main_sec_nnj09ga04b.pdf
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/21/2010 12:51 am
That PDF does not seem to be the document you are referring to. Or perhaps I am confused.

Quote
(see page 5 of the document -which is page 7 of the PDF, see also the index on page 1 -which is page 3 of the PDF)

Wow... that has to be the most byzantine page reference into a PDF document I have seen - I certainly canot make sense of it ??? 
EDIT: Ok I think I found it. But it is still not very conclusive, since the document is lacking context.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cheesybagel on 09/21/2010 01:56 am

Another thing that can happen is different launch environments in Texas and Florida. Just because something works in the Texas test stand, it does not mean it will work in the Florida launch site. There were plenty of occurrences of issues like this during the static test firing campaign for the first Falcon 9.


wrong, that is bad logic and would mean that spacex has bad engineering.

Because something works in the Texas test stand, it does mean it will work in the Florida launch site.
That is the reason for the test stand in TX, otherwise eliminate the stand in TX and use FL for everything.

+19 EELVs with only 1 pad test firings
+100 Delta II's with none

WDR's with off pad testing does everything necessary


The Texas site provides a way to test the stages separately. Lack of proper separate testing (including static testing) for each stage was a problem with e.g. the Europa launcher. Even with the N-1 there were many quality control and design issues which were only found and corrected too late in the process because they had no test stand, or static testing.

Texas is also a heck of a lot closer to California than Florida.

Problems happen. Thinking that you can solve all engineering problems by adding multiple layers of paperwork, fault trees, probabilistic risk assessments, check lists, and the like, well... The truth is these techniques do not work well when the vehicles are evolving continuously. Also, you cannot add a check for an unknown problem.

Delta II's usually have solids. You cannot do hot fire tests with solids. Even most EELV launches I can remember had some solids.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/21/2010 02:58 am

Delta II's usually have solids. You cannot do hot fire tests with solids. Even most EELV launches I can remember had some solids.


Yes you can.  How do you think the shuttle did it?  The Delta IV did it with solids
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 09/21/2010 05:22 am
That PDF does not seem to be the document you are referring to. Or perhaps I am confused.

Quote
(see page 5 of the document -which is page 7 of the PDF, see also the index on page 1 -which is page 3 of the PDF)

Wow... that has to be the most byzantine page reference into a PDF document I have seen - I certainly canot make sense of it ??? 
EDIT: Ok I think I found it. But it is still not very conclusive, since the document is lacking context.

The contract line items have been redacted which makes it hard to read. But page 7 of the PDF is where it mentions that it is an option.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tobi453 on 09/22/2010 10:03 pm
SpaceX Targets November for Dragon Demo Flight:
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/100922-spacex-targets-november-dragon.html
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: douglas100 on 09/22/2010 11:09 pm
Looks like Jim got it right again! :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 09/22/2010 11:30 pm
Looks like Jim got it right again! :)

surprise, surprise  :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: sdsds on 09/23/2010 12:43 am
On the static fire question, is there the possibility that not all the same people will be sitting in the launch control center who sat in those seats during the previous launch?  Giving newcomers first-hand experience of the count all the way to ignition could be reason enough for a static fire test.  The biggest "software" errors sometimes originate from the other side of the keyboard.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 09/23/2010 03:39 am
Doubtful.  And, any launch team worth its salt would have done enough sims that they wouldn't need any more practice prior to risking flight hardware.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: dbooker on 09/23/2010 03:35 pm
Couple questions.
1. Is re-entry/return part of the SpaceX COTS 1 Demo flight?
2. Anyone know if the 1st Dragon test article is still in orbit?  If so anyone know when it is projected to re-enter the atmosphere?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 09/23/2010 03:36 pm
Also, a WDR provides this experience too
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/23/2010 03:45 pm
Couple questions.
1. Is re-entry/return part of the SpaceX COTS 1 Demo flight?

Yes.

2. Anyone know if the 1st Dragon test article is still in orbit?  If so anyone know when it is projected to re-enter the atmosphere?

It is no longer in orbit. According to this WIKI page, re-entry occured "around 0050 GMT on June 27, 2010": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Spacecraft_Qualification_Unit
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/23/2010 04:08 pm
1. Is re-entry/return part of the SpaceX COTS 1 Demo flight?

This is what SpaceX put in their document to NASA:

"Demo 1 - Core Functionality Flight.

The first flight of Dragon is intended to demonstrate core functionality, such as on orbit maneuvering, structural integrity, systems functions and entry/descent/landing. Note, the spacecraft will be highly instrumented, with multi-megabit telemetry and video on all missions."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Salo on 09/24/2010 09:48 am
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/100922-spacex-targets-november-dragon.html
Quote
WASHINGTON — Hawthorne, Calif.-based Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) has shifted a planned Oct. 23 launch of its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon cargo vessel to November.

    “Our targeted launch date is moving — we’ve submitted a request for November 8th or 9th and are waiting for the range to complete their standard deconfliction work and provide a formal approval,” SpaceX spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said in a Sept. 21 e-mail.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/29/2010 08:34 pm
New SpaceRef article:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1447

New photos, including one of the WDR
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 09/30/2010 05:02 am
New SpaceRef article:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1447
New photos, including one of the WDR

Nice photos indeed but the article has many errors and silliness.
Comets don't flame.
The delay will "allow SpaceX personal (sic) additional time".  Uh, yeah
At this time all American launch pads are "sea side". SLC-40 is no different.
Falcon 9 isn't really "EELV class", which is no criticism.
Dragon will be berthed, not docked.
We know the author was an "invited" "eye witness", but it's not about him.

But I digress...

The Draco engines are again shown covered with those white caps and not flush to the outer surface.  That is still a curiosity.

The tear-out covers for the parachute shrouds are nearly flush, which is what one would suspect, but what is that other red line near the top?  For the drop test the three shroud lines converged at the top of the Dragon pressurized volume.  This potentially fourth line goes somewhere else, and it is definitely not flush.  Any ideas on this?

Looks like gloving around the Merlin engines.  Have we seen this before?

And this was the first post in five days for a launch in six weeks.  How can there be so little to discuss?

(Removed eroneous overcritical remark)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 09/30/2010 05:20 am
New SpaceRef article:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1447
New photos, including one of the WDR
The Draco engines are again shown covered with those white caps and not flush to the outer surface.  That is still a curiosity.

It looks like these pictures were taken in the middle of installing external insulation on the service section around the Draco's. (note the partial thin while liner near the heatshield which does not extend all around, only the bottom half, in this image: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/IMG_8368_KenKremer.jpg)

I'm guessing the remaining dark areas will receive custom-cut insulation to make everything near flush. This way the Draco covers will become flush with the surface around them. The center of the thrusters also look like a similar material that covers the Shuttle thrusters at launch, which is made to pop out at first thruster usage. Or they are just temporary protective covers.

Quote
The tear-out covers for the parachute shrouds are nearly flush, which is what one would suspect, but what is that other red line near the top?  For the drop test the three shroud lines converged at the top of the Dragon pressurized volume.  This potentially fourth line goes somewhere else, and it is definitely not flush.  Any ideas on this?

Could it be drogue-related? Or perhaps some trigger mechanism for releasing the nose cone after 2nd stage ignition?

Quote
Looks like gloving around the Merlin engines.  Have we seen this before?

Do you mean the blue covers of the engine nozzle? Or the white insulation material at the engine base? The latter looks a little different that what was seen in the pictures before flight 1, although the pictures may not have been taken at the same stage:
F9 flight 1 base: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/oospaceximage001.jpg
F9 flight 2 base: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/IMG_8278_KenKremer_.jpg

Quote
And this was the first post in five days for a launch in six weeks.  How can there be so little to discuss?

There has been plenty of discussion - just not much to add, until we get pictures or news like this.  :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 09/30/2010 06:07 am

]The tear-out covers for the parachute shrouds are nearly flush, which is what one would suspect, but what is that other red line near the top?  For the drop test the three shroud lines converged at the top of the Dragon pressurized volume.  This potentially fourth line goes somewhere else, and it is definitely not flush.  Any ideas on this?

Could it be drogue-related? Or perhaps some trigger mechanism for releasing the nose cone after 2nd stage ignition?

Quote
Looks like gloving around the Merlin engines.  Have we seen this before?

Do you mean the blue covers of the engine nozzle? Or the white insulation material at the engine base? The latter looks a little different that what was seen in the pictures before flight 1, although the pictures may not have been taken at the same stage:
F9 flight 1 base: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/oospaceximage001.jpg
F9 flight 2 base: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/IMG_8278_KenKremer_.jpg

No, it's not the drogues.  They come out of the middle of the three lines that meet at the top.  And I doubt that it has anything to do with the nosecone.

Yes, I meant the white fabric-like material around the engines above the bells.  It is different from any previous image.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: dunderwood on 09/30/2010 03:35 pm
Quote
STS-133 is not the last Shuttle flight.

It is the last flight of Discovery, which is what the article notes. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: renclod on 10/02/2010 08:32 pm

No, it's not the drogues.  They come out of the middle of the three lines that meet at the top. 

I think the drogues (two) come out from left and right. Main parachutes (three) come out of the middle.

The "other red line near the top" which "is definitely not flush" could be a [cable] tray for development flight instrumentation (something that a production Dragon won't have). Who knows.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 10/02/2010 08:53 pm
Falcon 9 isn't really "EELV class", which is no criticism.

The most often flown Atlas V is the 401 config, Falcon 9 has basically the same payload capacity to GTO.

It might not be as scalable as the EELVs yet (no F9H) but I would certainly consider it in their class.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/03/2010 07:22 am
Falcon 9 isn't really "EELV class", which is no criticism.

The most often flown Atlas V is the 401 config, Falcon 9 has basically the same payload capacity to GTO.

It might not be as scalable as the EELVs yet (no F9H) but I would certainly consider it in their class.

FWIW, I agree with Jim that the Falcon-9, in its current form, is a Delta-II-class launch vehicle.  The Raptor upper stage and possibly F-1e core derived LFB boosters might change that but that's off-topic for this thread.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: alexw on 10/03/2010 09:37 am
Falcon 9 isn't really "EELV class", which is no criticism.
The most often flown Atlas V is the 401 config, Falcon 9 has basically the same payload capacity to GTO.
It might not be as scalable as the EELVs yet (no F9H) but I would certainly consider it in their class.
FWIW, I agree with Jim that the Falcon-9, in its current form, is a Delta-II-class launch vehicle.  The Raptor upper stage and possibly F-1e core derived LFB boosters might change that but that's off-topic for this thread.
    Why do you think so?

    With a 5m fairing, at 10mT to LEO (28.5 200km), 8.3mT to sun-synchronous (LEO 200km), 3-3.5mT to GTO (1500 m/s delta-V to go trajectory), Falcon 9 looks to slot in between Atlas V 501 and 511, often closer to 511.

    For Earth-escape orbits, naturally, Centaur pulls ahead.

    Delta II, Taurus II, and Soyuz...err.. 2, all seem to be in a lesser performance class.
   -Alex
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/03/2010 12:47 pm
Falcon 9 isn't really "EELV class", which is no criticism.
The most often flown Atlas V is the 401 config, Falcon 9 has basically the same payload capacity to GTO.
It might not be as scalable as the EELVs yet (no F9H) but I would certainly consider it in their class.
FWIW, I agree with Jim that the Falcon-9, in its current form, is a Delta-II-class launch vehicle.  The Raptor upper stage and possibly F-1e core derived LFB boosters might change that but that's off-topic for this thread.
    Why do you think so?

Because the Atlas-V-401 and -501 are being marketed by ULA as a direct replacement for the Delta-II.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/03/2010 03:43 pm
Isn't it true that EELVs were originally intended not to have solid strap-ons? So, certainly Falcon 9 is in the same class as the original spec for EELVs. Who knows where Falcon 9 will be in 8 years time.

This is a little pointless argument. Kind of like the HLV argument. It's better just to explicitly say what payload capacity you're talking about.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 10/03/2010 03:44 pm
Because the Atlas-V-401 and -501 are being marketed by ULA as a direct replacement for the Delta-II.

Say what? They may offer Atlas V 401 as a Delta II replacement, but only because it's the next cheapest LV they have. It's still substantially more powerful than a Delta II.

The thing with F9 is that its maxed-out performance roughly equals the basic EELV configurations. And that maxed out performance hasn't even been demonstrated yet. EELV only pick up from there. The next step for F9 is the Heavy.

I wouldn't call F9 "EELV class", although I wouldn't call it Delta II class, either. It fits somewhere in between, closer to Atlas V 401 than Delta II.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 10/03/2010 06:59 pm
Isn't it true that EELVs were originally intended not to have solid strap-ons?

No, quite the opposite.  Solid strap-ons were always intended so that EELVs could be more closely matched to the payload mass.

PS: IMO, the F9 performance numbers don't yet pass my sanity check.  Parametrically, I think they're 10-15% too high.  Maybe they require the upgraded Merlin, which would make them more believable.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/03/2010 07:10 pm
Isn't it true that EELVs were originally intended not to have solid strap-ons?

No, quite the opposite.  Solid strap-ons were always intended so that EELVs could be more closely matched to the payload mass.

PS: IMO, the F9 performance numbers don't yet pass my sanity check.  Parametrically, I think they're 10-15% too high.  Maybe they require the upgraded Merlin, which would make them more believable.
Yeah, the Falcon 9 is not really humming along, yet.

But, I swear that I heard that at least one of the EELVs was not originally (when first proposed) supposed to have solid strap-ons.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/03/2010 07:18 pm
Isn't it true that EELVs were originally intended not to have solid strap-ons?

No, quite the opposite.  Solid strap-ons were always intended so that EELVs could be more closely matched to the payload mass.

PS: IMO, the F9 performance numbers don't yet pass my sanity check.  Parametrically, I think they're 10-15% too high.  Maybe they require the upgraded Merlin, which would make them more believable.

The original designs for EELV did not have strap on solid motors.  Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing proposed use of different upper stages to cover different payload ranges.  Solids were added later, though designers may have contemplated their use from the outset.

Here's a look at the early EELV plans.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1997/nov_ovrw.pdf

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 10/03/2010 08:43 pm
PS: IMO, the F9 performance numbers don't yet pass my sanity check.  Parametrically, I think they're 10-15% too high.  Maybe they require the upgraded Merlin, which would make them more believable.

The numbers they float around now definitely assume Block 2 and have for some time, at least since the User Guide v1 was released back in 2008. One still wonders what other caveats those performance figures assume, though.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 10/03/2010 11:24 pm

No, quite the opposite.  Solid strap-ons were always intended so that EELVs could be more closely matched to the payload mass.


Hate to correct you there.  Solids were added later in the program after commercial comsats were growing.  That is why the VIF has 1.X levels.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2010 03:08 am
I apologize for making a simple remark that seems to have set off this F9 vs EELV discussion.  It really wasn't that important, and it was noted as OT at the time
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 10/04/2010 07:04 am
When will Jim revise his launch prediction?  :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 10/04/2010 12:52 pm
When will Jim revise his launch prediction?  :)

It's still officially NET Nov 8, so even with a 1.5x time dilation to convert SpaceX time into standard time, there's still a high probability of a Nov launch date, especially since there's nothing else scheduled on the Eastern Range in mid-late Nov.

They have a static fire test that they want to do roughly one week before launch.  They may want to get that out of the way before the Shuttle launch on Nov 1 and the DIVH launch on Nov 4.  If they have to wait until after the range calms down, then Nov 8 may not be possible and the launch date may slip a week or so.

So I think that if we see a static fire by the end of this month, then Nov 8/9 looks good, but if not, then Nov 15-18 seems more likely.

But Jim may have a different and invariably more credible prediction...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/04/2010 06:34 pm
A new spaceX update: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

In it Elon mentions a planned 4 hr mission duration. So at least 2 orbits.

There's also this best shot yet of the Dragon, showing the heat shield: http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101001_dragonc1.jpg

There's also an internal shot of 'the second production Dragon spacecraft', showing some cargo racks and people: http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101001_scott.jpg (seems fairly roomy)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/04/2010 07:00 pm
A new spaceX update: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

...

There's also an internal shot of 'the second production Dragon spacecraft', showing some cargo racks and people: http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101001_scott.jpg (seems fairly roomy)

That would be the COTS-2 spacecraft, so it makes sense that it would be internally rigged like an operational CRS flight so that the flight dynamics match up to the real thing as much as possible.  As for the size, don't be fooled.  I suspect t hat we're looking from a camera flush up against the inner hull.  That will distort the perspective a little.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/04/2010 07:23 pm
Has this thing gotten bigger since Flight1? IIRC this was the source of the infamous "ice explosion" in pictures from the Flight1 static fire. Does anyone know or remember what it's for? 2nd stage telemetry? Perhaps improved for post-seperation tracking?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Hauerg on 10/04/2010 07:34 pm
Has this thing gotten bigger since Flight1? IIRC this was the source of the infamous "ice explosion" in pictures from the Flight1 static fire. Does anyone know or remember what it's for? 2nd stage telemetry? Perhaps improved for post-seperation tracking?
Camera housing and live video downlink? So that they have an idea what happened if recovery of stage 1 fails again?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 10/04/2010 07:40 pm
It's an RP-1 tank relief vent.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 10/05/2010 11:02 am
Also referring to the rear view shot of the first stage...

Did the first F9 have that clean flat expanse of white insulation(?) on aft surface of the thrust structure, with openings only for the throats of the engines and the turbopump exhausts? 

It looks really slick, and I don't remember seeing the first F9 looking so well dressed on her business end.  Is this a new attempt to achieve first stage recovery?  That would make sense, if it is indeed a modification for flight 2 and not just a part of the late integration steps that wasn't shown in the flight 1 update photos.

If they can recover the first stage this time around, in any reasonably intact condition, that would be a very impressive success for SpaceX.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: gospacex on 10/05/2010 11:34 am
Also referring to the rear view shot of the first stage...

Did the first F9 have that clean flat expanse of white insulation(?) on aft surface of the thrust structure, with openings only for the throats of the engines and the turbopump exhausts? 

It looks really slick, and I don't remember seeing the first F9 looking so well dressed on her business end.  Is this a new attempt to achieve first stage recovery?  That would make sense, if it is indeed a modification for flight 2 and not just a part of the late integration steps that wasn't shown in the flight 1 update photos.

If they can recover the first stage this time around, in any reasonably intact condition, that would be a very impressive success for SpaceX.

Non-intact condition will be ok too. They can look at the wreck and figure out what gave up first, what didn't work as expected etc. Can't do that if the stage is 3 miles down in the ocean...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/05/2010 11:38 am
Non-intact condition will be ok too. They can look at the wreck and figure out what gave up first, what didn't work as expected etc. Can't do that if the stage is 3 miles down in the ocean...

That shouldn't be an issue, so long as the vehicle doesn't loose structural integrity.  The propellent tanks, once empty, should act as huge buoyancy tanks.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Dave G on 10/06/2010 12:16 am
Did the first F9 have that clean flat expanse of white insulation(?) on aft surface of the thrust structure, with openings only for the throats of the engines and the turbopump exhausts? 

It could be something they just use for shippnig and storage, and then remove before launch.  Sort of like the white plastic you see on new cars in transit to dealers.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/06/2010 12:58 am
It looks more substantial and neatly integrated than a shipping or storage cover. Look at the rows of what appears to be fasteners.

Also, looking back through the updates, I think the flight 1 Falcon 9 did have these covers. The only view of that angle I've come across searching their site are videos of the rollout and the pad static fire. It's not very high resolution or from great angles, but the area between the engines appears to be filled in.

http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=48
http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=45

In contrast, when they first rolled a vehicle to the pad in spring 2009, it definitely did not have covers between the nozzles and the engines, nor any of the fairings around the engines.

Current:
http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101001_integrated.jpg

May 2009:
http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20090108_elonf9.jpg
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: zaitcev on 10/06/2010 02:07 am
I would really love to know how they manage to make the supports for the capsule to penetrate the heat shield without causing a burn-through.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 10/06/2010 02:34 am
I would really love to know how they manage to make the supports for the capsule to penetrate the heat shield without causing a burn-through.

I'll second that.  Must have a solution but it escapes me!!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 10/06/2010 02:38 am
I would really love to know how they manage to make the supports for the capsule to penetrate the heat shield without causing a burn-through.

I'll second that.  Must have a solution but it escapes me!!

Probably similar to how the orbiter's forward ET attach point ("arrowhead") works, though I can't find a good online reference at this point.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: subzero788 on 10/06/2010 02:41 am
How were the Apollo Command/Service modules attached?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 10/06/2010 02:48 am
How were the Apollo Command/Service modules attached?

Tension ties around the edges of the TPS.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 10/06/2010 02:50 am
At :26 seconds in on the new Falcon flight 1 video, you can just make out the covers for the first stage engines. They seem to be a slightly different color but the housing around them is still white.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/06/2010 02:54 am
I would really love to know how they manage to make the supports for the capsule to penetrate the heat shield without causing a burn-through.

This is interesting... I decided to Google an image of the Orion heat-shield for comparison - and what do you know, this prototype *also* has 'holes' like that: http://xpda.com/junkmail/junk198/heatshield.jpg
This rough Orion capsule schematic side view also shows holes/something there: http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/060926_cev_schem_02.jpg

And what about Apollo? Check out the Apollo 11 heat shield on display: http://lh4.ggpht.com/_7gD73enqswE/SUASyr2NyfI/AAAAAAAAEJs/qmslUAu5q0M/s912/IMG_6368.JPG - It also has similar holes.
This Apollo 17 pre-launch picture shows holes (some freshly painted over): http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/ap17-KSC-72C-1084.jpg

So this method of some (apparent) structural support of the capsule through the heat-shield seems to be a common thread for U.S capsules since Apollo. Perhaps someone with more background can explain how burn-through is prevented.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/06/2010 03:50 am
An addendum to my last post - This CAD model of the Orion SM appears to show the 6 structural support pads that line up with the 6 holes in the heat shield: (they have a green color)
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/4953/orioncargospacefc8.jpg
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/06/2010 03:53 am
AHA! Success :D - This NASA PDF file explains these "compression pads" (what the holes are):

"Analysis of Compression Pad Cavities for the Orion Heatshield"
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090007607_2009006273.pdf

Quote
Preliminary design of the Orion module and heatshield has leveraged technology and design solutions from Apollo wherever possible. One example is the support of mechanical loads between the command module (Orion) and service module when stacked for launch. In this configuration, launch loads must transfer through connections on the bottom of the capsule which penetrate though the windward reentry heatshield. Lightweight thermal protection materials for the heatshield do not possess the mechanical strength for support so, like Apollo, the Orion loads are transferred through densified compression pads embedded within the windward heatshield. A seamless integration of the compression pads within the heatshield would be ideal; however, the need for mechanical connections and even different rates of material ablation dictate some form of surface discontinuity.

EDIT: another PDF here: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080008297_2008007430.pdf
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 10/06/2010 04:51 am
Ok that explains a lot.  But I don't think SpaceX will use tension ties through the heatshield.  A simpler method would be external latches of some sort which I would think would maintain the integrity of the heat shield but that's only my uniformed opinion FWIW. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/06/2010 04:55 am
Ok that explains a lot.  But I don't think SpaceX will use tension ties through the heatshield.  A simpler method would be external latches of some sort which I would think would maintain the integrity of the heat shield but that's only my uniformed opinion FWIW. 

No, as you can see in this image ( http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/20101001_rotating.jpg ) the edge of the heat shield extends beyond the trunk. The only way to attach it firmly to the trunk is through some kind of tension tie mechanism through those 5 or 6 compression pads.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 10/06/2010 05:02 am
Ok that explains a lot.  But I don't think SpaceX will use tension ties through the heatshield.  A simpler method would be external latches of some sort which I would think would maintain the integrity of the heat shield but that's only my uniformed opinion FWIW. 

No, as you can see in this image ( http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/20101001_rotating.jpg ) the edge of the heat shield extends beyond the trunk. The only way to attach it firmly to the trunk is through some kind of tension tie mechanism through those 5 or 6 compression pads.
Ok guess that would prevent any possible edge damage to the heatshield as well.  Still don't like the idea of putting something through the heatshield but guess they've got it covered.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: JayP on 10/06/2010 03:55 pm
Ok that explains a lot.  But I don't think SpaceX will use tension ties through the heatshield.  A simpler method would be external latches of some sort which I would think would maintain the integrity of the heat shield but that's only my uniformed opinion FWIW. 

No, as you can see in this image ( http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/20101001_rotating.jpg ) the edge of the heat shield extends beyond the trunk. The only way to attach it firmly to the trunk is through some kind of tension tie mechanism through those 5 or 6 compression pads.
Ok guess that would prevent any possible edge damage to the heatshield as well.  Still don't like the idea of putting something through the heatshield but guess they've got it covered.
You’ve got to remember, heat shields aren’t magic. You can have a metallic protrusion thru the heat shield with no problem. All you need is a large enough mass of metal with reference to the area (of metal) that is being heated that can absorb the heat that is being applied. It’s called a heat sink. That is how the bi-pod mount on the shuttle works. In the center of the RCC arrow head is the circular metallic section (that is really 3 coplanar faces –the outer housing, the face of the spherical bearing and the sheared off end of the actual connecting bolt). It’s mounted in a heavy housing at a point where a lot of the structure comes together. All that structure absorbs the heat that is applied to the external faces. You could, in-fact, cover the entire bottom of the capsule in a 3 in thick layer of beryllium and it would survive the reentry just fine, it just would be to heavy to launch.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 10/06/2010 04:28 pm
I would really love to know how they manage to make the supports for the capsule to penetrate the heat shield without causing a burn-through.
I asked that back here
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg644750#msg644750
Ben the space brit ansswered..
Quote
They aren't holes, they are geometric shapes in the PICA material into which the trunk attachment pads will fit.  the raised sides will stop the Dragon rotating atop the trunk during high-vibration flight modes.
jb
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 10/07/2010 01:53 am
My understanding is that they will use tension ties through the heatshield at the pad locations.  It seems the shape of the 'holes' (and particularly their edges - bevel angle) which take the pads prevent major blow through of heat gases.  The gas boundary layer apparently only flows down into the hole a certain distance but not sufficiently to blow through. 
There's a paper on another thread describing the testing and analyses that was done for Orion which is proposed to use a similar system.  They also compared PICA and AVCOAT.  Seems AVCOAT was superior. Wouldn't you know it, can't find the link now!!  Hope I've got that right!! :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: go4mars on 10/08/2010 02:41 am
  They also compared PICA and AVCOAT.  Seems AVCOAT was superior. Wouldn't you know it, can't find the link now!!  Hope I've got that right!! :)

Here's the link:

http://techfragments.com/news/688/Science/NASA_Selects_Avcoat_As_Heat_Shield_Material_for_Orion.html

Although PicaX, is apparently superior to the PICA used on the stardust mission, so it isn't clear which is better between PicaX and Avcoat. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 10/08/2010 03:49 am
  They also compared PICA and AVCOAT.  Seems AVCOAT was superior. Wouldn't you know it, can't find the link now!!  Hope I've got that right!! :)

Here's the link:

http://techfragments.com/news/688/Science/NASA_Selects_Avcoat_As_Heat_Shield_Material_for_Orion.html

Although PicaX, is apparently superior to the PICA used on the stardust mission, so it isn't clear which is better between PicaX and Avcoat. 

Ah thanks.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2010 07:17 am
The Delta-IVH launch with the NROL-32 recon-sat keeps on slipping; I note that it seems to have reached 11/5 now.  What is the latest it can happen before SpaceX have to give up their 11/8 launch slot?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: renclod on 10/08/2010 08:11 pm
I would really love to know how they manage to make the supports for the capsule to penetrate the heat shield without causing a burn-through.
I asked that back here
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg644750#msg644750
Ben the space brit ansswered..
Quote
They aren't holes, they are geometric shapes in the PICA material into which the trunk attachment pads will fit.  the raised sides will stop the Dragon rotating atop the trunk during high-vibration flight modes.
jb

The compression pads are different material than the heatshield.
Ex: heatshield is PICA, or Avcoat. Fragile stuff.
Compression pads are [like] carbon-phenolic. Not sure what exactly that is, but think Shuttle RCC or rocket engine carbon composite nozzle material (RS-68, RSRM). Strong, heat-resistant material.
The compression pads are reacting loads between the CM and service module. The heatshield proper (ablative material) , does not.
The tension ties are forcing the CM and SM together.
Think steel cable, or threaded rods.
At CM-SM separation, the tension ties are severed (cut) on the outside of the heatshield/pads, so there is no hole. After separation, there is a small piece of the tension tie protruding, in the wake.
Each tension tie is going either right through the compression pad (Orion, Dragon), or through the heatshield but in close proximity of the compression pad (Apollo).
In the SpaceX updates (months old) there is a photo of heatshield assembly pathfinder operations - can't miss the compression pad (blue-ish colour in the pic), surrounded by large PICA tiles; or the tension tie position.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 10/08/2010 08:36 pm
If you look at the video of the Dragon - Trunk separation test at http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=49 it looks like there are six pads, three of which have tension ties near their centers.  ("Orion style")  As renclod says, after separation there is a small bit of the tensioner protruding through the pad that should be more or less flush with the PICA-X heat shield.  Here is a frame from the video where those protrusions are barely visible.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2010 09:26 pm
The Delta-IVH launch with the NROL-32 recon-sat keeps on slipping; I note that it seems to have reached 11/5 now.  What is the latest it can happen before SpaceX have to give up their 11/8 launch slot?

Hard to say.  There aren't hard, fast requirements on this.  Commercial launches are supposed to have precedence once on a long-term launch slot, but the government can always claim national interest or ISS crew at risk to bump them.

The same thing applies on short-term range scheduling, but IME once a range date is confirmed it is REALLY unusual for anyone to get bumped.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: aquarius on 10/13/2010 11:13 pm
NROL-32 launch slipped to November 16, so right now it can't impact the launch of F9/Dragon.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 10/13/2010 11:26 pm
NROL-32 launch slipped to November 16, so right now it can't impact the launch of F9/Dragon.

Sucks for them, but great for Space-X (and ISS)  :)Thanks
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 10/15/2010 12:48 pm
COTS-1 is still on for November 8th about 3 weeks away due to the slippage of Delta IV to November 16th. That means that both Falcon 9 and the Shuttle will be on their pads at the same time. Sound like a great photo op. Also, Spacex still needs to engine test about 1 week before launch. Can they perform that while the shuttle is awaiting launch or will they narrrow their window and perform the test just after the shuttle launch? Does that also mean that the shuttle, Delta IV and Falcon 9 will all be on their pads at once. Wow! has that ever happened before?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 10/15/2010 02:16 pm
That means that both Falcon 9 and the Shuttle will be on their pads at the same time.

People never learn when it comes to new vehicles/spacecraft, do they?

Both Falcon 9 and the Shuttle may be on their pads at the same time. COTS-1 may slip just as NROL-32 has.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2010 03:32 pm
The F9 is no longer on its erector.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 10/15/2010 03:53 pm
The F9 is no longer on its erector.

Does that imply something? Of course it's not on it's erectror. It's undergoing testing and vehicle integration as shown in this update picture on Spacex's website.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/15/2010 04:13 pm
Besides, this is the Cape we're talking about.  It isn't the nicest of work environments when it comes to weather, bugs and beasties.  Would you voluntarily leave something outside of its sealed and air-conditioned hanger longer than absolutely necessary?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChefPat on 10/15/2010 04:40 pm
The F9 is no longer on its erector.
Thank you for the update (despite the negative comments about having done so), it is appreciated.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 10/15/2010 04:40 pm
Of course it's not on it's erectror. It's undergoing testing and vehicle integration as shown in this update picture on Spacex's website.

Well, duh, that image was taken before the vehicle was rolled out to the pad and WDR performed.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2010 04:58 pm
The F9 is no longer on its erector.
Thank you for the update (despite the negative comments about having done so), it is appreciated.


The erector is at the pad and vertical.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 10/15/2010 05:02 pm
Is the erector normally stored vertical?  I saw a photo recently of it horizontal and parked outside of the integration hangar which leads me to think it is not normally kept hooked up at the pad.  Leaves one to wonder if something new has been added and is now being tested.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 10/15/2010 05:03 pm
I guess it's only logical the stack had to be demated from the T/E in order to also demate Dragon. Curious why they tend to prefer keeping the T/E vertical at the pad, though.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChefPat on 10/15/2010 06:23 pm
I guess it's only logical the stack had to be demated from the T/E in order to also demate Dragon. Curious why they tend to prefer keeping the T/E vertical at the pad, though.
Once F9 is picked up by the cradle, wouldn't the erector be in the way?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 10/15/2010 09:45 pm
I guess it's only logical the stack had to be demated from the T/E in order to also demate Dragon. Curious why they tend to prefer keeping the T/E vertical at the pad, though.


Why would they demate Dragon before the static fire test?  I assume they're doing some prep work for the static fire (ignition fluid loading?), after which they will roll back to demate Dragon for hypergolic loading and remate for launch.

I predict static fire will be sometime around Oct 25-28, safely before Shuttle takes the range and leaving plenty of time for Dragon hyper loading and final preps.  Could even be late next week at the earliest.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 10/17/2010 06:23 am
I predict static fire will be sometime around Oct 25-28, safely before Shuttle takes the range and leaving plenty of time for Dragon hyper loading and final preps.  Could even be late next week at the earliest.

Why would range availability affect a static fire test? They aren't launching anything.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: alexw on 10/17/2010 06:30 am
I predict static fire will be sometime around Oct 25-28, safely before Shuttle takes the range and leaving plenty of time for Dragon hyper loading and final preps.  Could even be late next week at the earliest.
Why would range availability affect a static fire test? They aren't launching anything.

   In case of thermal curtain failure?      {Running and ducking...!}
    -Alex
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/17/2010 08:14 am
I predict static fire will be sometime around Oct 25-28, safely before Shuttle takes the range and leaving plenty of time for Dragon hyper loading and final preps.  Could even be late next week at the earliest.

Why would range availability affect a static fire test? They aren't launching anything.

A static fire requires that the range be fully ready for a flight.  I don't know why, it just does.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 10/17/2010 11:10 am
I predict static fire will be sometime around Oct 25-28, safely before Shuttle takes the range and leaving plenty of time for Dragon hyper loading and final preps.  Could even be late next week at the earliest.

Why would range availability affect a static fire test? They aren't launching anything.

There are road blocks, RSS tests, comm, telemetry downlink etc provided by the range.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: CitabriaFlyer on 10/17/2010 12:22 pm
Question for Jim or whoever:  Why is the range so limited?  Why can't it support multiple launches a day from different boosters?  What could be done to make it function more like an airport with multiple launches per day using a variety of vehicles?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 10/17/2010 12:46 pm
Question for Jim or whoever:  Why is the range so limited?  Why can't it support multiple launches a day from different boosters?  What could be done to make it function more like an airport with multiple launches per day using a variety of vehicles?

$



Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/17/2010 12:49 pm
HA! A new record for brevity!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 10/17/2010 12:53 pm
The range is only staffed for 5/40 per week, with overtime and some pre/post shifting to over off hours and weekends.

Same goes for other resources, which were designed to support only one launch at a time, like comm lines, telemetry receivers and range control centers.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 10/17/2010 04:08 pm
It's quite clear that NASA has to reshape their thinking for the 21st century and embrace a more commercial way of doing things. Can you imagine a store that could only run for 8 hours 5 days a week. Look at Spaceport America, they are planning multiple launches daily. I'm not stating Cape operations are as simple as theirs. What i am stating is that new ways need to be looked at to perform multiple launches on a given day.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 10/17/2010 04:28 pm
It's quite clear that NASA has to reshape their thinking for the 21st century and embrace a more commercial way of doing things. Can you imagine a store that could only run for 8 hours 5 days a week. Look at Spaceport America, they are planning multiple launches daily. I'm not stating Cape operations are as simple as theirs. What i am stating is that new ways need to be looked at to perform multiple launches on a given day.

NASA has nothing to do with the launch rate at Cape Canaveral. That is controlled by USAF 45th SW.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim_LAX on 10/17/2010 04:42 pm
Mr. Mark has a valid and important point:  Passenger service on commercial airlines would be unthinkable with the launh rate currently supported by the cape.  Standardization of ground equipent and operating procedures and full staffing is needed to support takeoffs (and landings?) like any commercial airport.  As we approach this goal costs to launch and recover will drop steadily.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/17/2010 04:51 pm
Expendable rocket launch operations are not comparable to airliner operations, and I don't think they'll ever will be.

Once we (hopefully) have true RLVs, *then * we can start questioning when the spaceport will be running like an airport.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 10/17/2010 04:59 pm
Mr. Mark has a valid and important point:  Passenger service on commercial airlines would be unthinkable with the launh rate currently supported by the cape.

My point is also valid and important: no matter how much people rag on NASA and no matter how much NASA itself is reformed, it will not affect the launch rate at the Cape one bit, because the USAF controls the Cape, not NASA.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/17/2010 06:57 pm
If the launch rate were increased, the increased number of range fees collected would probably allow the range resources to be expanded to handle the greater flight rate. Back in the Cold War, the Cape saw a much higher flight rate than today.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 10/17/2010 07:23 pm
Jeez, folks, this is simple tax/spending policy.  Do you want to pay people to sit around and do nothing during the 90% of the year when there aren't multiple flights trying to use the same range?

Now, if there were a way to have them doing something needed when there's not a range glut, that is something that should be pursued.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: DigitalMan on 10/18/2010 04:01 am
My point is also valid and important: no matter how much people rag on NASA and no matter how much NASA itself is reformed, it will not affect the launch rate at the Cape one bit, because the USAF controls the Cape, not NASA.

The FY2011 request included the following, did any of this make it into the authorization?  I don't recall seeing it.  All this probably needs its own thread.

Quote
21st Century Launch Complex: The President’s FY 2011 Budget seeks to modernize the
Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), transforming them to
provide the capabilities this Nation’s 21st century space programs will need. The effort is
intended to augment NASA’s current and future operations to achieve safe, increased operational
efficiency and reduced launch costs for all customers (industry, NASA, national security, etc).

The goal of the enhanced complex is to facilitate multiple launches of different vehicle types
from different companies carrying both humans and cargo to space in a cost-effective and timely
manner. Other important projects include enhancements to the range, payload processing
capabilities and environmental clean up activities.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 10/18/2010 04:35 am
The FY2011 request included the following, did any of this make it into the authorization?  I don't recall seeing it.

The bill includes $1.3 billion over the 3 years for the "NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111OjzdoI:e15069:

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/18/2010 05:12 am
Almost all of that will probably go towards improving and/or modernizing existing assets, rather than increasing capacity to handle more launches. There does not seem to be any need for increased capacity currently.

I guess it is up to SpaceX to prove that more capacity is needed.  ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 10/18/2010 11:31 am
Mr. Mark has a valid and important point:  Passenger service on commercial airlines would be unthinkable with the launh rate currently supported by the cape.  Standardization of ground equipent and operating procedures and full staffing is needed to support takeoffs (and landings?) like any commercial airport.  As we approach this goal costs to launch and recover will drop steadily.

It is fully staffed..... to support 8/40.  The flight rates don't justify anymore.

The range has standard operating procedure and equipment.  It is the launch vehicles that aren't.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 10/25/2010 06:22 am
This flight has slipped to NET Nov 18th. Hope it can still go in Nov.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: aquarius on 10/26/2010 04:08 pm
If launch remains scheduled for Nov.18, engineers plan to roll the Falcon 9 rocket to the launch pad for a preflight engine firing Nov.13.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/101026launchdate/
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Sage on 10/28/2010 02:04 pm
If launch remains scheduled for Nov.18, engineers plan to roll the Falcon 9 rocket to the launch pad for a preflight engine firing Nov.13.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/101026launchdate/

Launch window is from 0855 to 1205 EST.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/28/2010 07:37 pm
SpaceX: With every launch new (regulatory) discoveries are made!

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/10/28/06.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Dragon%20Cleared%20For%20Launch&channel=space
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/28/2010 07:43 pm
I assume the Dragon capsule is designed to survive a ballistic (and passive) reentry, right?

So, if control is lost on the Dragon capsule, its orbit would decay and it'd survive reentry (although not landing!) if all power is somehow lost after it reached orbit and had shed its service module?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 10/29/2010 08:16 am
I assume the Dragon capsule is designed to survive a ballistic (and passive) reentry, right?

So, if control is lost on the Dragon capsule, its orbit would decay and it'd survive reentry (although not landing!) if all power is somehow lost after it reached orbit and had shed its service module?

Well parts of it would survive landing - lol.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: e of pi on 10/29/2010 10:32 am
I assume the Dragon capsule is designed to survive a ballistic (and passive) reentry, right?

So, if control is lost on the Dragon capsule, its orbit would decay and it'd survive reentry (although not landing!) if all power is somehow lost after it reached orbit and had shed its service module?

I may be wrong, but orientation is a big issue there. If oriented properly before power loss? I think it could survive entry, you'd just essentially be replacing the impulse of a retro burn with the cumulative drag effects. However, I'm not so sure it could survive intact it not oriented properly.

Parachutes might also be an issue. The capsule might survive entry only to plow into the ocean going far faster than designed.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 10/29/2010 03:15 pm
I assume the Dragon capsule is designed to survive a ballistic (and passive) reentry, right?

So, if control is lost on the Dragon capsule, its orbit would decay and it'd survive reentry (although not landing!) if all power is somehow lost after it reached orbit and had shed its service module?

I may be wrong, but orientation is a big issue there. If oriented properly before power loss? I think it could survive entry, you'd just essentially be replacing the impulse of a retro burn with the cumulative drag effects. However, I'm not so sure it could survive intact it not oriented properly.

Parachutes might also be an issue. The capsule might survive entry only to plow into the ocean going far faster than designed.

Remember the Soyuz missions where the Service Module failed to detach as planned?  As soon as the reentry forces tore it away the capsules righted themselves.  Given sufficient stability, (including sheding the Trunk) a stable capsule will enter heatshield first.  And when it does that, one would suppose that its subsonic velocity at a few miles altitude would be close to nominal regardless of how it reentered.  Of course, if it lost power, it might not deploy the parachutes.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 10/29/2010 03:49 pm
Using a terminal velocity calculator, SpaceX numbers for Dragon and a few guesses I got a terminal velocity for it  of 323.386 kph/200.943 mph.  Even if off by 25% that's NOT a soft landing.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: savuporo on 10/29/2010 06:06 pm
300kph is borderline doable for jumping out of an airplane. Not nice, but tolerable.

Can Dragon's hatch be blown for emergency skydiving ops ?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/29/2010 06:22 pm
Using a terminal velocity calculator, SpaceX numbers for Dragon and a few guesses I got a terminal velocity for it  of 323.386 kph/200.943 mph.  Even if off by 25% that's NOT a soft landing.
200mph sounds about right. I wonder if a single astronaut could bail out at that speed, within half a minute? It should be technically possible (though not at all safe), and smallish reserve parachutes are rather lightweight (a couple 8 kg).

EDIT:Thanks, savuporo. :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: savuporo on 10/29/2010 06:25 pm
200mph sounds about right. I wonder if a single astronaut could bail out at that speed, within half a minute? It should be technically possible (though not at all safe), and smallish reserve parachutes are rather lightweight (a couple kg).
I just went and weighed mine : it 8 kilograms rig, 150sqft main canopy.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 10/29/2010 06:48 pm
Have to free-fall a bit to slow to a normal human TV though since most 'chutes I've seen spec at ~140kts = 160mph/260kph.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/29/2010 06:50 pm
Have to free-fall a bit to slow to a normal human TV though since most 'chutes I've seen spec at ~140kts = 160mph/260kph.
I'm sure you'd have no problem getting a parachute opening spec at something like 350kph if you had to.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Hauerg on 10/29/2010 07:21 pm
Have to free-fall a bit to slow to a normal human TV though since most 'chutes I've seen spec at ~140kts = 160mph/260kph.
I'm sure you'd have no problem getting a parachute opening spec at something like 350kph if you had to.
The problem will be to get as much as 7 astronauts out of the hatch in time.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 10/29/2010 07:22 pm
Why blow that tiny side hatch? Couldn't they blow the much larger CBM & exit the top? Or both?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/29/2010 07:27 pm
Have to free-fall a bit to slow to a normal human TV though since most 'chutes I've seen spec at ~140kts = 160mph/260kph.
I'm sure you'd have no problem getting a parachute opening spec at something like 350kph if you had to.
The problem will be to get as much as 7 astronauts out of the hatch in time.
Quite true. Unless you split the capsule in half, I don't see how 7 could exit in time (after the main chutes failed but before hitting the water). For one or two or maybe even three, it might be possible.

A Vostok repeat could be done. Better to just ensure the main chutes work.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 10/29/2010 07:30 pm
Repeat: blow the CBM
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 10/29/2010 07:37 pm
Repeat: blow the CBM

before that, why not just have a backup set of chutes inside the vehcile itself, if the mains don't deploy, blow the hatch and deploy chute from inside the vehicle. 

I thought all systems on a "man rated" spacecraft had to be triple failure tollerant, so, are there already backup chute systems designed into Orion/Soyuz today?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: savuporo on 10/29/2010 07:39 pm
Have to free-fall a bit to slow to a normal human TV though since most 'chutes I've seen spec at ~140kts = 160mph/260kph.
Erm. I have done headdown dives at near 300kph, and have no problems braking down from there to a normal box position and deploying at regular 170kph.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/29/2010 07:40 pm
Repeat: blow the CBM

Manned Dragon won't have a CBM. The docking hatch will have a much smaller diameter.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: savuporo on 10/29/2010 07:46 pm
Have to free-fall a bit to slow to a normal human TV though since most 'chutes I've seen spec at ~140kts = 160mph/260kph.
I'm sure you'd have no problem getting a parachute opening spec at something like 350kph if you had to.
The problem will be to get as much as 7 astronauts out of the hatch in time.
7 skydivers can exit a plane in 2-3 seconds. Even with this being more difficult in freefall, if you start jumping at 15000feet ( regularly considered safe jumping altitude ) that gives you quite a bit of time to get out.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chandonn on 10/29/2010 08:19 pm
Manned Dragon won't have a CBM. The docking hatch will have a much smaller diameter.

Acually, I'm not sure if they will have a CBM or not.  There may be a simple CBM-to-LIDS adapter on manned Dragon -- just to keep the designs as similar as possible.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/29/2010 08:28 pm
Manned Dragon won't have a CBM. The docking hatch will have a much smaller diameter.

Acually, I'm not sure if they will have a CBM or not.  There may be a simple CBM-to-LIDS adapter on manned Dragon -- just to keep the designs as similar as possible.
And with a "lifeboat Orion," there isn't a requirement to be able to undock/unberth without station power.

This is starting get off-topic, and it's my fault.

What do people give odds for successful reentry and recovery of COTS Demo 1 Dragon, assuming it gets to orbit?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/29/2010 08:28 pm
Possibly... Although I think we are moving off topic for this "COTS Demo 1" thread. This discussion should probably move to the general SpaceX discussion thread.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/29/2010 08:30 pm
What do people give odds for successful reentry and recovery of COTS Demo 1 Dragon, assuming it gets to orbit?

90% would be my odds... But what do I know!  ;D Parachute deployment seems like the biggest risk element to this uninformed observer.  ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: hop on 10/29/2010 08:46 pm
I thought all systems on a "man rated" spacecraft had to be triple failure tollerant, so, are there already backup chute systems designed into Orion/Soyuz today?
Soyuz has a backup chute. IIRC it's a bit smaller than the main, so the landing won't be gentle. And as always with reserve chutes, you better hope the main is out of the way.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: savuporo on 10/29/2010 10:16 pm
And as always with reserve chutes, you better hope the main is out of the way.
Which, IMO, again makes the case for personal parachutes, rather than a backup capsule chute.
Well known technology, proven every day by thousands of people all over the world, and quite safe. Especially because every rig ( save for base-jumping ones ) comes with a reserve.

Increases the chances of individual survival for the entire crew, IMHO.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 10/29/2010 10:57 pm
Which, IMO, again makes the case for personal parachutes, rather than a backup capsule chute.
Well known technology, proven every day by thousands of people all over the world, and quite safe. Especially because every rig ( save for base-jumping ones ) comes with a reserve.

Increases the chances of individual survival for the entire crew, IMHO.

Up to 6 people, out of a hole no more than 2x2 feet wide, while wearing pressure suits, out of a possibility wildly gyrating, supersonic capsule, into a pressure bubble which would be located at the top of the capsule....

From the time the chutes attempt to deploy to impact with the water would be what?  2-3 minutes?  Given some time for attempts at redeployment and the speed the capsule would be falling, and how long it will take for them to unfasten themselves and get out the hole, I just don't know how any of them would survive the attempt.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 10/29/2010 11:03 pm
And as always with reserve chutes, you better hope the main is out of the way.
Which, IMO, again makes the case for personal parachutes, rather than a backup capsule chute.
Well known technology, proven every day by thousands of people all over the world, and quite safe. Especially because every rig ( save for base-jumping ones ) comes with a reserve.

Increases the chances of individual survival for the entire crew, IMHO.

How many of those thousands of jumpers per day have spent six months in zero gravity before attempting the jump?

If it were my butt in the capsule, I'd want a reserve on the capsule along with a robust, redundant way to cut the primary and deploy the secondary.  I wouldn't want to try and bail out after extended zero G exposure.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/29/2010 11:20 pm
Exactly... Trying to add personal parachutes and hope that people can get out is just a non-starter.

There's a reason why no capsule since Vostok has implemented such a scheme. (or were Gemini crew capable of ejecting if the parachute failed?)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: simonbp on 10/29/2010 11:30 pm
And the first three shuttle missions...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: savuporo on 10/29/2010 11:39 pm
Previous zero-g exposure is a valid point. I probably wouldn't be keen on jumping after floating around that long either, otherwise it would be a nice thrill.

But then, we are talking about last resort, all else failed attempt with the only alternative of hitting water at 300kph.
Note : reserve parachute of a capsule does not get tested every day, while i standard gear from Performance Designs and the like does, and ( almost ) never fails.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/29/2010 11:42 pm
And the first three shuttle missions...

Yes, but the question was about capsules. The Shuttle has no main parachute that can fail. :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/29/2010 11:43 pm
The Vostok ejection seat wasn't just for emergencies, it was used on nominal decents.

SpaceX uses three mains for the same reason Apollo and Orion did/will; only two are needed the third is the redundant/backup.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mduncan36 on 10/29/2010 11:47 pm
7 skydivers can exit a plane in 2-3 seconds. Even with this being more difficult in freefall, if you start jumping at 15000feet ( regularly considered safe jumping altitude ) that gives you quite a bit of time to get out.

Yes, but those skydivers are standing in an open doorway. They don't have to climb over each other and squeeze out of a pressure hatch after six months of zero gravity. In the Dragon you would have a difficult time just getting two people to the door at the same time. Much better to put your backup chute on the capsule. Dragon has three and only needs two for a safe landing. A single open chute would probably make for a survivable if not entirely healthy landing on water. Apollo 15 landed with only two good parachutes and the impact wasn't even severe enough to dislodge the Hassleblad camera that Jim Irwin was gripping between his knees at the time. That is a risk I would much rather take than any attempt at a bailout from a spinning, rapidly descending, crowded, capsule.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: go4mars on 10/30/2010 05:10 am
7 skydivers can exit a plane in 2-3 seconds. Even with this being more difficult in freefall, if you start jumping at 15000feet ( regularly considered safe jumping altitude ) that gives you quite a bit of time to get out.
Yes, but those skydivers are standing in an open doorway. They don't have to climb over each other and squeeze out of a pressure hatch after six months of zero gravity. In the Dragon you would have a difficult time just getting two people to the door at the same time. Much better to put your backup chute on the capsule. Dragon has three and only needs two for a safe landing. A single open chute would probably make for a survivable if not entirely healthy landing on water. Apollo 15 landed with only two good parachutes and the impact wasn't even severe enough to dislodge the Hassleblad camera that Jim Irwin was gripping between his knees at the time. That is a risk I would much rather take than any attempt at a bailout from a spinning, rapidly descending, crowded, capsule.

But as back up number 3, If the main chute fails, and the reserve chute gets tangled in the main chutes or something, it would sure feel good to have a 24V sawsall and a backpack parachute.   Personal parachute is an interesting idea, and bears consideration since they are relatively small and light.  Like landing habs on Mars.  Save the powered decent for just the people, and land the habs, etc. at higher gforce, built tougher.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: someguy on 10/30/2010 10:44 am
I don't really get this whole discussion. Sometimes there are just unrecoverable situations. At a certain point you have as much redundancy as can be reasonably added, beyond which you don't really get more safety. I think personal parachutes are beyond this point, especially due to the difficulty of ever being able to reasonably use them.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 10/30/2010 12:17 pm
I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to implement a parachute deploy system that runs on its own dedicated battery and altitude/velocity instruments.  Skydivers use a similar system. 

If everything else fails during entry, then all that has to work for a survivable landing is the parachute system, so why not make it completely independent of the main avionics systems?

For all we know, this could be what SpaceX is doing.  Did the drop test Dragon capsule contain flight-spec rechargeable batteries and flight computers, or was it just a mass simulator with a simple independent parachute system like I describe?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chandonn on 10/30/2010 01:38 pm
Guys, we need to get this thread back on topic and take the discussion to teh SpaceX Discussion thread...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg653494
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Toner Soprano on 10/30/2010 11:00 pm
Guys, we need to get this thread back on topic and take the discussion to teh SpaceX Discussion thread...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg653494

Another SpaceX music video posted:  http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=54

It looks like the Dragon drop test put to music. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/30/2010 11:42 pm
Guys, we need to get this thread back on topic and take the discussion to teh SpaceX Discussion thread...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg653494

Another SpaceX music video posted:  http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=54

It looks like the Dragon drop test put to music. 
It looks a lot like the chutes are stored in the ring outside the pressure vessel but just above the heat shield.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 10/31/2010 12:16 am
It looks a lot like the chutes are stored in the ring outside the pressure vessel but just above the heat shield.

Hasn't that fact been established a long time ago?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/31/2010 12:19 am
It looks a lot like the chutes are stored in the ring outside the pressure vessel but just above the heat shield.

Hasn't that fact been established a long time ago?
Probably, but I didn't realize it. ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 10/31/2010 12:50 am
Guys, we need to get this thread back on topic and take the discussion to teh SpaceX Discussion thread...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg653494

Another SpaceX music video posted:  http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=54

It looks like the Dragon drop test put to music. 

Nice!!! There's also several new shots/angles in addition to the old footage.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 10/31/2010 04:29 am
It looks a lot like the chutes are stored in the ring outside the pressure vessel but just above the heat shield.

Hasn't that fact been established a long time ago?

A long time ago, Robotbeat. ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Salo on 11/02/2010 01:39 pm
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.htmlNov. 18    Falcon 9  •  Dragon C1
Launch window: 1355-1705 GMT (8:55 a.m.-12:05 p.m. EST) (http://Nov. 18 Falcon 9  •  Dragon C1
Launch window: 1355-1705 GMT (8:55 a.m.-12:05 p.m. EST))
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/02/2010 01:50 pm
Any particular reason why the launch window opens 5 minutes before the hour and closes 5 minutes after the hour and not just a straight-up 3 hour window?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Patchouli on 11/04/2010 01:49 am
7 skydivers can exit a plane in 2-3 seconds. Even with this being more difficult in freefall, if you start jumping at 15000feet ( regularly considered safe jumping altitude ) that gives you quite a bit of time to get out.

Yes, but those skydivers are standing in an open doorway. They don't have to climb over each other and squeeze out of a pressure hatch after six months of zero gravity. In the Dragon you would have a difficult time just getting two people to the door at the same time. Much better to put your backup chute on the capsule. Dragon has three and only needs two for a safe landing. A single open chute would probably make for a survivable if not entirely healthy landing on water. Apollo 15 landed with only two good parachutes and the impact wasn't even severe enough to dislodge the Hassleblad camera that Jim Irwin was gripping between his knees at the time. That is a risk I would much rather take than any attempt at a bailout from a spinning, rapidly descending, crowded, capsule.

Plus a mostly sealed capsule that is designed to be seaworthy is going to be a lot safer then being in a small raft.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: aquarius on 11/04/2010 08:53 pm
The launch moved to November 19 due to range conflict with Delta 4-Heavy.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mrmandias on 11/04/2010 11:27 pm
The slippage rate is decreasing.  SpaceX scheduling would make a good intro to basic calculus concepts.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChefPat on 11/04/2010 11:58 pm
The launch moved to November 19 due to range conflict with Delta 4-Heavy.
Go baby go!!! My prediction was for the 19th. :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: savuporo on 11/05/2010 12:02 am
At times, it seems like SpaceX is following this formula with their scheduling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/05/2010 12:08 am
I don't care if it takes longer to get to launch so long as the mission is successful. 

If the first F9 launch was any indication, they'll be triple checking everything and then again.   I bet they're still a bit nervous about that first flight; whether they got lucky or whether they really do have all they're ducks in a row!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/05/2010 12:14 am
At times, it seems like SpaceX is following this formula with their scheduling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise

Ha, very gooood!! Point to you!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 11/06/2010 02:04 am
Space News is now (Nov  5) saying NET November 20.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chandonn on 11/06/2010 09:10 am
Space News is now (Nov  5) saying NET November 20.

Range conflight:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg656842#msg656842
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: VR2 on 11/08/2010 02:34 pm
Space News is now (Nov  5) saying NET November 20.

Range conflight:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg656842#msg656842
December 7 (NET)
http://fdfhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/fdinfo_Launch_2010.html
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: R.Simko on 11/08/2010 04:55 pm
Space News is now (Nov  5) saying NET November 20.

Range conflight:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg656842#msg656842
December 7 (NET)
http://fdfhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/fdinfo_Launch_2010.html

Well that will be an easy date to remember.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 11/08/2010 05:13 pm
At times, it seems like SpaceX is following this formula with their scheduling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise

Ha, very gooood!! Point to you!

We probably should only give him half a point, then the next time the schedule slips, he can have half the remaining difference to a full point, and then the next time the schedule slips, etc. When SpaceX launches he'll have accrued a full point.

The slips are being reported as range conflicts now. Hopefully that's an indicator everything else is on track, but also hopefully they'll make good use of the extra time to triple check everything and continue to rehearse.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mrmandias on 11/08/2010 05:45 pm
hopefully they'll make good use of the extra time to triple check everything and continue to rehearse.

Since Congress in its wisdom seems to think that commercial space is just SpaceX, we need SpaceX to provide some good optics.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: chrisking0997 on 11/08/2010 08:12 pm
Im confused by all these range conflict slips.  Is F9 just low man on the totem pole and keeps getting deferred due to other vehicles, or is there something else at play with the schedule (thanksgiving, for example)?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/08/2010 10:08 pm
Im confused by all these range conflict slips.  Is F9 just low man on the totem pole and keeps getting deferred due to other vehicles, or is there something else at play with the schedule (thanksgiving, for example)?

It is first come, first serve wrt the range.  Space keeps wanting dates that other projects have already reserved, so I surmise.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/09/2010 12:38 am
Im confused by all these range conflict slips.  Is F9 just low man on the totem pole and keeps getting deferred due to other vehicles, or is there something else at play with the schedule (thanksgiving, for example)?

It is first come, first serve wrt the range.  Space keeps wanting dates that other projects have already reserved, so I surmise.

Aren't they still waiting for FAA go?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 11/09/2010 01:57 am
Part of it is the offset from Shuttle since SpaceX is also using the SRB boats in hopes to track and recover the first stage.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 11/09/2010 02:18 am
Question concerning parachute system. I was watching the hd drop test video and the parachutes are released out of a large hatch. This opening seems to be very large. Is this how the parachutes will be released on the upcoming cargo flights? Will such a large hole take on water at splashdown creating problems for downmass capability?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 11/09/2010 04:55 am
The launch moved to November 19 due to range conflict with Delta 4-Heavy.
Go baby go!!! My prediction was for the 19th. :)
No baby no!
Now December 7 according to  SpaceflightNow (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html).
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 11/09/2010 04:55 am
Question concerning parachute system. I was watching the hd drop test video and the parachutes are released out of a large hatch. This opening seems to be very large. Is this how the parachutes will be released on the upcoming cargo flights? Will such a large hole take on water at splashdown creating problems for downmass capability?

No, the large hole that opens up is outside of the pressurized volume of the capsule. It is situated at the base of the capsule between the Draco thruster banks, in the unpressurized "service section/ring" just above the edge of the heat shield.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChefPat on 11/09/2010 11:39 am
The launch moved to November 19 due to range conflict with Delta 4-Heavy.
Go baby go!!! My prediction was for the 19th. :)
No baby no!
Now December 7 according to  SpaceflightNow (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html).
:(
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kaloyan on 11/09/2010 12:02 pm
And here's a news article about the delay from SpaceNews.com (http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/101108-spacex-cots-demo-delayed.html)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 11/09/2010 03:34 pm
This is not good news about the FAA. How do we know that they will even be ready for approval by December 7th? They have had these documants for over a year and the application is still not processed. Does anyone here know a basic timeline for FAA approval. This could go on into next year.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/09/2010 03:38 pm
They have had these documants for over a year and the application is still not processed.

If the article said the FAA wanted to have information that was only recently acquired by SpaceX via ground tests of the Dragon flight unit, then it's not "for over a year", is it?

Also, how can you talk about "basic time for approval" when this is the first commercial reentry licence ever to be issued?

Also #2, I have faith SpaceX will be able to delay the flight further all by themselves. They won't need the FAA for that. I'm only partly sarcastic.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 11/09/2010 06:39 pm
They have had these documants for over a year and the application is still not processed.

They've had parts of it for over a year. They've had the final application for less than two weeks:

Quote
after more than a year spent tying up loose ends associated with the recoverable space capsule’s re-entry license application, which the company submitted in final form to federal regulators Oct. 29
...
Price said the FAA is still reviewing a number of key pieces of information about the re-entry that it requested in June 2009 but did not receive until Oct. 29, 2010.

http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/111005-spacex-awaiting-faa-approval-license.html
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/10/2010 01:05 am
My impression is that the FAA, the range, and NASA have been pretty good so far as SpaceX goes.  A point SpaceX has made on at least one occasion.  I don't think there's any delay agendas in the offing and from the looks of it, I'd say that they're all trying to get SpaceX up and running as fast as possible while ensuring safety and following the normal requirements for any launch.

It seems delays are just part and parcel of the space launch business and that so-called nu-space companies are as prone to this as the older established ones.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: AlexCam on 11/10/2010 07:58 pm

It seems delays are just part and parcel of the space launch business and that so-called nu-space companies are as prone to this as the older established ones.

Not so much the space launch business is burdened by delays but the introduction of new products in the aerospace industry in general.

Soyuz and Ariane 5 launches are very often right on schedule.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mduncan36 on 11/10/2010 08:18 pm

It seems delays are just part and parcel of the space launch business and that so-called nu-space companies are as prone to this as the older established ones.

Not so much the space launch business is burdened by delays but the introduction of new products in the aerospace industry in general.

Soyuz and Ariane 5 launches are very often right on schedule.


Well in fairness, both of them have had quite a bit of time and numerous attempts with which to become proficient. I recall the initial experience with both vehicles ending less than happily.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: baldusi on 11/11/2010 03:40 pm
Not so much the space launch business is burdened by delays but the introduction of new products in the aerospace industry in general.

Soyuz and Ariane 5 launches are very often right on schedule.
Ariane 5 haven't been able to make their objective of six launches this year. In fact, they are fighting to even make five. Apparently they had some quality issues with a tank's supplier and had a three month delay. And let's not mention the Soyuz from Kourou delay. They are  years delayed. The worst part is that they already have two rockets full qualified and two more on the way, but the launch platform isn't ready.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: AlexCam on 11/13/2010 12:17 pm
Not so much the space launch business is burdened by delays but the introduction of new products in the aerospace industry in general.

Soyuz and Ariane 5 launches are very often right on schedule.
Ariane 5 haven't been able to make their objective of six launches this year. In fact, they are fighting to even make five. Apparently they had some quality issues with a tank's supplier and had a three month delay. And let's not mention the Soyuz from Kourou delay. They are  years delayed. The worst part is that they already have two rockets full qualified and two more on the way, but the launch platform isn't ready.

Arianespace is the prime example of what I tried to say. "Soyuz from Kourou" is a new product, which has faced and is still facing countless delays and technical difficulties. This is common in the aerospace industry, be it the A380, the Boeing Dreamliner, the Falcon 1 and 9 introduction, the Space Shuttle program in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the ISS etc.

However, once the system and product is mature, delays only occur before firm launch dates are set (e.g. with Arianespace launching potentially only 5 times this year instead of 6, although 6 is still possible). You hardly ever see slips of 6-9 months between launches for Ariane 5.

Having said that, once the Falcon 9 "product" and launch process matures, SpaceX time will more closely align to real time. This should be the case in about 18-24 months, if not, then SpaceX is facing problems.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 11/16/2010 02:48 am
My impression is that the FAA, the range, and NASA have been pretty good so far as SpaceX goes.

At the same time, SpaceX did in the past express some frustrations with bureaucracy. The instance that comes to mind is complaining about range availability at Vandenberg back when they were planning to launch the first Falcon 1 from there. Although others have dismissed it as a show to cover for their many and huge delays, I'm not convinced they didn't actually think they were on track to make a (likely to fail) launch attempt.

I suspect, however, that whatever their frustration then was, they've come to accept a large part of it as necessary, if distasteful and not always perfectly run.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: zaitcev on 11/16/2010 04:17 pm
The instance that comes to mind is complaining about range availability at Vandenberg back when they were planning to launch the first Falcon 1 from there.
I heard that relationship in general started off a wrong foot, including a case when the base commander threw Elon out of his office once, for being too arrogant. Perhaps now being hobbled by the real work at the Cape, SpaceX representatives are welcome at Vanderberg once again. It is all only rumors though. We need a tell-it-all book by a retiree.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 11/16/2010 05:12 pm
Is it possible to get this thread back on ACTUAL COTS1 updates please? the discussions here are all valid but are probably better suited to the spacex discussion thread...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: telomerase99 on 11/16/2010 06:42 pm
With the fourth crack now found in the Shuttle are we looking at Cots 1 potentially later than Dec 7? Does this Cots flight have to follow the Shuttle flight?

If the Shuttle flight is bumped for 30 days would this flight have to wait to follow it?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/16/2010 06:44 pm
They are unrelated
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Mike_1179 on 11/16/2010 07:16 pm
How much time is required for the range to reconfigure from STS-133 to COTS1?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Nate_Trost on 11/16/2010 07:19 pm
I thought the long-pole in the turnaround was going to be the SRB boats for attempting first-stage recovery.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 11/16/2010 11:25 pm
It is. 7 days after Shuttle launch to tow them back in, unload, and go back out.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/17/2010 12:15 am
It is. 7 days after Shuttle launch to tow them back in, unload, and go back out.

Surely there're other boats available!?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/17/2010 12:34 am

Surely there're other boats available!?

How many boats in the world do you think that are setup to retrieve boosters?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Namechange User on 11/17/2010 12:37 am

Surely there're other boats available!?

How many boats in the world do you think that are setup to retrieve boosters?

37.  ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Nomadd on 11/17/2010 01:16 am
 Would SpaceX delay the flight just because they wouldn't be able to recover the 1st stage?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: arkaska on 11/17/2010 01:43 am
Most likely since recovering the 1st (and later even the 2nd) stage is a big part in making the launches cheap.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/17/2010 11:55 am
Most likely since recovering the 1st (and later even the 2nd) stage is a big part in making the launches cheap.

More likely since recovering the first stage is a big part of their plans to refine the design and margins of the vehicle over time.  They'd like to enable reuse most likely starting with the thrust structure, but at this point in time the engineering analysis is the most important reason for recovery.  They need that data to see if they can tease some more mass and cost out of that stage.  It's probably a bit of a "battleship" construction right now to hedge the risk of an embarrassing failure.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Dave G on 11/17/2010 01:05 pm
... at this point in time the engineering analysis is the most important reason for recovery.  They need that data to see if they can tease some more mass and cost out of that stage.  It's probably a bit of a "battleship" construction right now to hedge the risk of an embarrassing failure.
Exactly.

Reuse is secondary at the moment.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 11/17/2010 07:38 pm
Would SpaceX delay the flight just because they wouldn't be able to recover the 1st stage?

I think it would be more apt to ask why wouldn't they? Seven days isn't that much of a delay, and they have no hard deadline on this launch.

That means nothing by itself, but combined with the performance evaluation it could allow and potential for eventual re-use, it seems well-worth it.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/18/2010 03:26 am

Surely there're other boats available!?

How many boats in the world do you think that are setup to retrieve boosters?
Well yes I understand the comment about boats and boosters but some time ago, there was a photo showing a floating pontoon arrangment for recovering the F9 1st stage.  Looked like all you really needed was a tow boat.  So again, surely there's something else available that would suit?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 11/18/2010 03:59 am

Surely there're other boats available!?

How many boats in the world do you think that are setup to retrieve boosters?
Well yes I understand the comment about boats and boosters but some time ago, there was a photo showing a floating pontoon arrangment for recovering the F9 1st stage.  Looked like all you really needed was a tow boat.  So again, surely there's something else available that would suit?

Just out of curiosity, is the reason SpaceX is using the SRB recovery teams because of some type of special licence so they have to fly closer to the incoming 1st stage (like catching a fly ball in baseball), or is it just their experience in finding spent 1st stages?

How close can the boat get to the projected spashdown point before it impacts?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 11/18/2010 04:17 am
Size-wise the F9 first stage is very close to an SRB, so it makes sense to use the services of a ship capable of recovering similar hardware.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/18/2010 06:54 am
Size-wise the F9 first stage is very close to an SRB, so it makes sense to use the services of a ship capable of recovering similar hardware.

On the other hand, we're all making the assumption that the 1st stage comes down in one piece otherwise all you might need is a 'tinnie' (small aluminium boat with outboard) to recover the pieces! LOL.

Joking aside, here's all the best to them.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/18/2010 11:35 am

Surely there're other boats available!?

How many boats in the world do you think that are setup to retrieve boosters?
Well yes I understand the comment about boats and boosters but some time ago, there was a photo showing a floating pontoon arrangment for recovering the F9 1st stage.  Looked like all you really needed was a tow boat.  So again, surely there's something else available that would suit?

How many boat crews in the world do you think that are experienced in retrieving boosters
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/18/2010 11:41 am

Well yes I understand the comment about boats and boosters but some time ago, there was a photo showing a floating pontoon arrangment for recovering the F9 1st stage.  Looked like all you really needed was a tow boat.  So again, surely there's something else available that would suit?

How many boats in the world do you think that are setup to retrieve boosters?  Not just towing but strapped to the side of the boat (see a boat with a retrieved SRB), have deck space and crane for the pontoon, can support divers, have a propulsion system to navigate with a  SRB strapped to the side of the boat, can navigate the shallow Banana River..... need I add more?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/18/2010 11:42 am
Just out of curiosity, is the reason SpaceX is using the SRB recovery teams because of some type of special licence

no such thing
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/19/2010 12:20 am

Well yes I understand the comment about boats and boosters but some time ago, there was a photo showing a floating pontoon arrangment for recovering the F9 1st stage.  Looked like all you really needed was a tow boat.  So again, surely there's something else available that would suit?

How many boats in the world do you think that are setup to retrieve boosters?  Not just towing but strapped to the side of the boat (see a boat with a retrieved SRB), have deck space and crane for the pontoon, can support divers, have a propulsion system to navigate with a  SRB strapped to the side of the boat, can navigate the shallow Banana River..... need I add more?

Salvage is salvage.  If you want to make it difficult and expensive go right ahead but my old man worked in marine salvage most of his life and I learnt a great deal about it before heading into beancounting.
It's not that difficult.  Dangerous at times, yes, but difficult generally no.  You don't need special gear for navigation, propulsion and the like.  An experienced operator doesn't need all that.  They use their experience and skill.  As for shallow winding rivers, give me a break, they exist in other parts of the world. 
An empty booster's just that, nothing special so don't try to keep perpetuating old myths to keep things expensive.  They don't have to be like that.
Normally you make a lot of sense Jim and I have great respect for your comments but here on this one, you're just plain wrong.  Might be the existing old way.  Doesn't have to be the future.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/19/2010 11:13 am


Salvage is salvage.  If you want to make it difficult and expensive go right ahead but my old man worked in marine salvage most of his life and I learnt a great deal about it before heading into beancounting.
It's not that difficult.  Dangerous at times, yes, but difficult generally no.  You don't need special gear for navigation, propulsion and the like.  An experienced operator doesn't need all that.  They use their experience and skill.  As for shallow winding rivers, give me a break, they exist in other parts of the world. 
An empty booster's just that, nothing special so don't try to keep perpetuating old myths to keep things expensive.  They don't have to be like that.
Normally you make a lot of sense Jim and I have great respect for your comments but here on this one, you're just plain wrong.  Might be the existing old way.  Doesn't have to be the future.

No, I am not wrong.   This is not salvage, it is recovery.  Salvage is not concerned with saving fit, form and function.  Salvage is only concerned with saving the materials.

It is not a shallow river, it is a lagoon with manatees.  The SRB ships use jet propulsion while in the lagoon.  What special navigation equipment?  Never said about that, however, the SRB ships do have special gear for tracking the boosters.  And they have the existing hardware for recovering parachutes.

As for an empty booster, you don't really know what is involved with the recovery. 

"experienced operator doesn't need all that.  They use their experience and skill."   That is why the SRB ships are being used. 

Also, more importantly, Spacex doesn't have to pay to train or maintain the service. Nor do they have to pay to reserve the time for the service, only when they actually use it.   The service exists and when it is not working a shuttle mission, it is available.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tobi453 on 11/19/2010 02:40 pm
So what will SpaceX do, when the shuttle retires?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/19/2010 05:38 pm
So what will SpaceX do, when the shuttle retires?

That depends on the SLS.  If the new SLS uses ATK segmented SRMs, then the Freedom Star and Liberty Star will still be operational and ready to collect their core stages.  Otherwise, they'll have to find an alternative - maybe even lease or purchase one of the ships for their own use.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/20/2010 03:57 am
So what will SpaceX do, when the shuttle retires?

That depends on the SLS.  If the new SLS uses ATK segmented SRMs, then the Freedom Star and Liberty Star will still be operational and ready to collect their core stages.  Otherwise, they'll have to find an alternative - maybe even lease or purchase one of the ships for their own use.
SpaceX won't stay with the old expensive methods.  No matter what Jim believes they are outdated and expensive and SpaceX will find more efficient and ways of retrieval.  In this case, I'll stick with my comments above.  Jim will, no doubt, stick with his as well. 
That's the value in  a democracy, differing views can exist together.  Either way, SpaceX will make its own decisions.  As some other blogger once posted, and I quote ' time will tell '.
Cheers
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/20/2010 11:14 am

SpaceX won't stay with the old expensive methods.  No matter what Jim believes they are outdated and expensive and SpaceX will find more efficient and ways of retrieval.

What is old and outdated about the SRB ships?  And how can it be more efficient?

And another comment.  Spacex has been getting their comeuppance on a lot of things and finding out that they have to end up doing it the old school ways. This goes back to the very first launch. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/21/2010 11:49 am

SpaceX won't stay with the old expensive methods.  No matter what Jim believes they are outdated and expensive and SpaceX will find more efficient and ways of retrieval.

What is old and outdated about the SRB ships?  And how can it be more efficient?

And another comment.  Spacex has been getting their comeuppance on a lot of things and finding out that they have to end up doing it the old school ways. This goes back to the very first launch. 
It's ok Jim, seems I touched a raw nerve for which I apologies.  I just think people are entitled to their view, even when it differs from your's.  See previous comment. 

Cheers.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/21/2010 11:56 am
Views are views, but you clearly stated previously his "view" is just plain wrong.

Normally you make a lot of sense Jim and I have great respect for your comments but here on this one, you're just plain wrong.

Of course, you backed out of that later, but still - what exactly makes you an expert on booster recovery to give your "view" more credence than his?

Do you really believe absolutely everything related to the Shuttle program is bloated 10x over what is really needed and that SpaceX would undoubtedly be better and cheaper off with buying their own recovery vessels instead of using already existing ones?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rnc on 11/21/2010 12:10 pm
"recovery" would still be the better word for both nasa and spacex. "salvage" has a specific meaning within the marine industry, and normally applies to shipping in peril.

nasa have the best track record in recovering launch vehicle structures from the sea. spacex have none. lets wait and see how spacex do. they certainly have much to learn.

regards.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 11/21/2010 02:30 pm
What is old and outdated about the SRB ships?  And how can it be more efficient?

And another comment.  Spacex has been getting their comeuppance on a lot of things and finding out that they have to end up doing it the old school ways. This goes back to the very first launch. 
It's ok Jim, seems I touched a raw nerve for which I apologies.  I just think people are entitled to their view, even when it differs from your's.  See previous comment. 

Cheers.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Liberty_Star_with_SRB_after_STS-87_%282%29.jpg/800px-Liberty_Star_with_SRB_after_STS-87_%282%29.jpg)

I don't really see how SpaceX would manage to do much better than the Liberty/Freedom Star, & a 9 person crew.  Much smaller and the ships would not be quick enough/have the capacity to carry the spent stages. 

I was honestly floored when i read that the SRB recovery team was only 9 people. 

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/21/2010 02:48 pm
Much smaller and the ships would not be quick enough/have the capacity to carry the spent stages. 

Moreso because F9 stages nominally drop much further downrange than SRBs, IIRC. The former burn out 1 minute later and at almost 2x the burnout velocity than the latter.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 11/21/2010 04:50 pm
Two words: ocean tug.  Yes, a radar boat would have to do tracking, but then they're not as tied to NASA's schedule if ATK's lobbyists get their way. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 11/21/2010 05:30 pm
Come on guys, really?

If the Falcon 9 1st stage manages to survive reentry, and splashdown mostly intact, it will be one of the most valuable pieces of aerospace hardware to be pulled out of the ocean since Skylab 4's return.

It would be the first non SRB 1st stage ever recovered intact for inspection, why in heck would SpaceX go cheap on it's recovery?  How does this sound for a nightmare scenario "SpaceX's Falcon 9 1st stage survived reentry and spashdown, but the tug boat/scrap team they sent out to recover it, though ignorance about spacecraft, allowed it to sink to the bottom of the ocean floor"

Even SpaceX does not know what condition the 1st stage will be in when it returns, it could be taking on water from the second it impacts, it could be on fire, who knows?  There is only one trained team in the world that has experence in recovering aerospace hardware from the Atlantic ocean, and that's the SRB team.  It doesn't matter if they cost 100 times what Joe's towing service costs, they are worth it. 

Now down the road, if SpaceX is dropping 11 1st stages a year into the Atlantic, it might be worth the money to get their own boat and team, but till then, let the experts do it.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2010 06:14 pm
Two words: ocean tug.  Yes, a radar boat would have to do tracking, but then they're not as tied to NASA's schedule if ATK's lobbyists get their way. 

Spaced wont be launching enough for that to be a factor
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/22/2010 01:00 am
Two words: ocean tug.  Yes, a radar boat would have to do tracking, but then they're not as tied to NASA's schedule if ATK's lobbyists get their way. 

Spaced wont be launching enough for that to be a factor

Insufficient data to support or disprove this statement at this time.

However, speculating and assuming 'Spaced' is SpaceX:
Should Bigelow get his stations up and operating with 2 or 3 stations as he's stated, and should SpaceX get into HSF, and should SpaceX get a decent slice of that business, then SpaceX could well be launching at least once per month.  It may then be worth their while to do their own thing. 

SpaceX certainly seems to have a perchant for doing things in-house - the latest report is the turbopump.

Assuming also that they get 1st stage return and reusability sorted as well.  That's by no means assured but it would be fantastic if they could.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/22/2010 01:03 am

Insufficient data to support or disprove this statement at this time.


Plenty of data is available, why else would I make.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/22/2010 01:11 am

Insufficient data to support or disprove this statement at this time.


Plenty of data is available, why else would I make.

Ok.  What's wrong with the above assumptions?  If you agree the assumptions then the end result is possible.  If they don't hold then I'll agree that in-house 'might' not make sense but either way it's not a given.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 11/22/2010 01:13 am
Two words: ocean tug.  Yes, a radar boat would have to do tracking, but then they're not as tied to NASA's schedule if ATK's lobbyists get their way. 

Spaced wont be launching enough for that to be a factor

Insufficient data to support or disprove this statement at this time.

However, speculating and assuming 'Spaced' is SpaceX:
Should Bigelow get his stations up and operating with 2 or 3 stations as he's stated, and should SpaceX get into HSF, and should SpaceX get a decent slice of that business, then SpaceX could well be launching at least once per month.  It may then be worth their while to do their own thing. 

SpaceX certainly seems to have a perchant for doing things in-house - the latest report is the turbopump.

Assuming also that they get 1st stage return and reusability sorted as well.  That's by no means assured but it would be fantastic if they could.

SRB recover is a 3 day operation last I checked, SpaceX acknowledged that the max launch rate from the cape will be around 12 a year, and even if the SLS matched the max flight rate of the Shuttle, which is not likely, that still has the SRB recovery teams only busy 54 days a year.  That's not a full schedule at a good therietical max for the teams work.

If SpaceX has 6 a year from the cape and SLS launches 2-3 times a year, which is the likely maxes, the SRB recovery teams will still never have as much work as they did at the max of the Shuttle program.



Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/22/2010 01:17 am
Two words: ocean tug.  Yes, a radar boat would have to do tracking, but then they're not as tied to NASA's schedule if ATK's lobbyists get their way. 
Spaced wont be launching enough for that to be a factor

Insufficient data to support or disprove this statement at this time.

However, speculating and assuming 'Spaced' is SpaceX:
Should Bigelow get his stations up and operating with 2 or 3 stations as he's stated, and should SpaceX get into HSF, and should SpaceX get a decent slice of that business, then SpaceX could well be launching at least once per month.  It may then be worth their while to do their own thing. 

SpaceX certainly seems to have a perchant for doing things in-house - the latest report is the turbopump.

Assuming also that they get 1st stage return and reusability sorted as well.  That's by no means assured but it would be fantastic if they could.

SRB recover is a 3 day operation last I checked, SpaceX acknowledged that the max launch rate from the cape will be around 12 a year, and even if the SLS matched the max flight rate of the Shuttle, which is not likely, that still has the SRB recovery teams only busy 54 days a year.  That's not a full schedule at a good therietical max for the teams work.

If SpaceX has 6 a year from the cape and SLS launches 2-3 times a year, which is the likely maxes, the SRB recovery teams will still never have as much work as they did at the max of the Shuttle program.


OK, thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/22/2010 01:20 am

Insufficient data to support or disprove this statement at this time.


Plenty of data is available, why else would I make.

Ok.  What's wrong with the above assumptions?  If you agree the assumptions then the end result is possible.  If they don't hold then I'll agree that in-house 'might' not make sense but either way it's not a given.

It has nothing to do with available missions to fly.  They won't achieve those flight rates.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/22/2010 06:01 am

Insufficient data to support or disprove this statement at this time.



Plenty of data is available, why else would I make.

Ok.  What's wrong with the above assumptions?  If you agree the assumptions then the end result is possible.  If they don't hold then I'll agree that in-house 'might' not make sense but either way it's not a given.

It has nothing to do with available missions to fly.  They won't achieve those flight rates.

'They won't achieve those flight rates.'  ???
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/22/2010 07:25 am
It has nothing to do with available missions to fly.  They won't achieve those flight rates.

Setting aside the quantitative definition of "those flight rates" for a moment, what do you believe is the bottleneck in their operation?

Once they get into the swing of things, 6 per year shouldn't be unmanageable. At 8 per year I think they start to outgrow the Hawthorne facility and consider setting up a facility in Florida for tankage, leaving Hawthorne for engines and spacecraft.

They'll need that to reach 12 per year, which is probably the practical limit for LC-40 and McGregor as they exist today. They'll also want a voluminous Florida facility for processing recovered first stages and further down to line for developing a larger vehicle like Falcon X.

They might be able to manage six F9s in 2012 given sufficient demand, but I don't see them launching twelve F9s before 2015 even under ideal circumstances.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Tnarg on 11/22/2010 09:11 am
SpaceX certainly seems to have a perchant for doing things in-house - the latest report is the turbopump.

True, SpaceX are good at what they do and If they think they can do a better job then there suppilyers they will take it in house.  But recovery of the first stage seems a little outside there basic skill set.  If there is a small effent team doing the job well then I dont see why SpaceX would want to change things.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/22/2010 10:14 am
SpaceX certainly seems to have a perchant for doing things in-house - the latest report is the turbopump.

True, SpaceX are good at what they do and If they think they can do a better job then there suppilyers they will take it in house.  But recovery of the first stage seems a little outside there basic skill set.  If there is a small effent team doing the job well then I dont see why SpaceX would want to change things.
SpaceX bring things in-house to assure quality, supply reliability and cost control.  I have no doubt that the existing 'recovery' setup is great on quality and supply reliability but cost is the other factor.  By all accounts, the turbopump quality was first rate so cost and supply reliability must have been the other factors.
Therefore assuming flight rates reach a certain level, then the recovery operation will be open to scruitiny from a cost perspective.  In business, everything is.
So far as 'outside the skill set' goes, SpaceX has no trouble obtaining the people with the necessary skills that they require.  Don't see them having any trouble with this either. 
On the other hand, another thought has just occurred to me.  The recovery charges are probably going to drop significantly if they haven't already since they'll have no real business left once Shuttle stops flying.  That's maybe 1 or 2 jobs left.  Maybe SpaceX will just buy the whole setup at bargain basement price if they get reusability sorted. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/22/2010 11:08 am
.  The recovery charges are probably going to drop significantly if they haven't already since they'll have no real business left once Shuttle stops flying.  That's maybe 1 or 2 jobs left.  Maybe SpaceX will just buy the whole setup at bargain basement price if they get reusability sorted. 

No, they will increase because they have to maintain the capability (fund a standing army)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: go4mars on 11/22/2010 01:28 pm
It has nothing to do with available missions to fly.  They won't achieve those flight rates.

Is there a timeframe missing from this statement?  Or is it stated as intended?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/22/2010 02:12 pm
Why is everyone knocking SpaceX for renting existing recovery ships, vs. going to the extra expense of outfitting there own ship. Using this logic, SpaceX needs to buy it's own Florida swamp land and spend the millions (billions?) to build it's own range.

Just curious who does SpaceX lease the recovery ships from in Kwajalein?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/22/2010 02:52 pm
It has nothing to do with available missions to fly.  They won't achieve those flight rates.

Is there a timeframe missing from this statement?  Or is it stated as intended?

Yes, there is.  And a whole lot more besides.  Particularly, confident prediction about the specifics of unknown future data points, without even the acknowledgement that SpaceX could modify its strategies as conditions warrant. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: madscientist197 on 11/22/2010 03:15 pm
I was honestly floored when i read that the SRB recovery team was only 9 people.

I am truly impressed by this.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Avron on 11/22/2010 03:16 pm
I was honestly floored when i read that the SRB recovery team was only 9 people.

I am truly impressed by this.

Per team? i.e 18 in total?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 11/22/2010 06:26 pm
There's a whole lot of baseless conjecture in the flight rate argument here.  You're not adding anything to the discussion unless you cite what you're basing it on.  "I have no doubt" and "By all accounts" are weak debate tactics, not suitable for those of us who have technical discussions that put lives and Billions of dollars on the line.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/23/2010 01:14 am
.  The recovery charges are probably going to drop significantly if they haven't already since they'll have no real business left once Shuttle stops flying.  That's maybe 1 or 2 jobs left.  Maybe SpaceX will just buy the whole setup at bargain basement price if they get reusability sorted. 

No, they will increase because they have to maintain the capability (fund a standing army)

Not quite sure about this.  Are you saying that these vessels are used exclusively by NASA and have no other customers. 

If that's correct, then once the Shuttle stops flying, in the absence of SpaceX, what do they do? 

SpaceX will be doing the cost analyses on this side of the business just like they do for any other part of their operations.  There will be a point where it becomes more efficient to bring the operations in-house.

Should the recovery group increase their costs as you believe they will, then in time, they may pass the point where SpaceX decides they're too costly.  SpaceX will then either set up their own recovery group or find some other way of doing things which will be more cost efficient.  They're in business after all, and they're not required to support existing structures.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kkattula on 11/23/2010 01:31 am
If SLS uses Shuttle derived RSRMs, then obviously NASA is going to need to maintain the recovery ships post Shuttle. Being able to offset some of that cost by hiring them out to SpaceX, is a bonus.

After Shuttle retires, will SpaceX be the only user for a couple of years? Or does someone else use them?

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Pheogh on 11/23/2010 01:34 am
If SLS uses Shuttle derived RSRMs, then obviously NASA is going to need to maintain the recovery ships post Shuttle. Being able to offset some of that cost by hiring them out to SpaceX, is a bonus.

After Shuttle retires, will SpaceX be the only user for a couple of years? Or does someone else use them?



Not to be Debbie Downer her but doesn't SpaceX still have to demonstrate recovery? I wasn't sure any of the "one" test launches survived.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kkattula on 11/23/2010 01:46 am
...It would be the first non SRB 1st stage ever recovered intact for inspection, ...

Well, except for the odd B-52 and L-1011.  Depending on your definition of first stage.  ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kkattula on 11/23/2010 01:49 am
If SLS uses Shuttle derived RSRMs, then obviously NASA is going to need to maintain the recovery ships post Shuttle. Being able to offset some of that cost by hiring them out to SpaceX, is a bonus.

After Shuttle retires, will SpaceX be the only user for a couple of years? Or does someone else use them?



Not to be Debbie Downer her but doesn't SpaceX still have to demonstrate recovery? I wasn't sure any of the "one" test launches survived.

Well yeah, none have survived so far. But I assume they're going to keep on trying to recover first stages.  They still need a recovery ship standing by for that, whether the stage survives or not.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: spacetraveler on 11/23/2010 02:23 am
The reentry license for the C1 launch has been finalized.

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/101122license/

Hope it can proceed relatively soon here.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/23/2010 04:13 am
Recovery is a lot easier than reuse... I have no doubt SpaceX will be able to pull off first stage recovery. Maybe not this time, but eventually.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/23/2010 06:44 am
Recovery is a lot easier than reuse... I have no doubt SpaceX will be able to pull off first stage recovery. Maybe not this time, but eventually.
The capsule drop test seemed to indicate a very soft entry into the water.  Since the structures and engines have been designed for reuse then provided they get down in one piece, the reuse bit should be ok.  That said, I still can't think how you'd go about refurbishing and certifying a used first stage for flight.  As I stated in another thread, you can't just take the turbo, run it and say ok we'll fly that bit!!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/23/2010 07:21 am
Did they ever work out why flight 1's core just broke up during descent the way it did?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: gospacex on 11/23/2010 08:49 am
Recovery is a lot easier than reuse... I have no doubt SpaceX will be able to pull off first stage recovery. Maybe not this time, but eventually.
The capsule drop test seemed to indicate a very soft entry into the water.  Since the structures and engines have been designed for reuse then provided they get down in one piece, the reuse bit should be ok.  That said, I still can't think how you'd go about refurbishing and certifying a used first stage for flight. As I stated in another thread, you can't just take the turbo, run it and say ok we'll fly that bit!!

Why not?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChefPat on 11/23/2010 11:03 am
If SLS uses Shuttle derived RSRMs, then obviously NASA is going to need to maintain the recovery ships post Shuttle. Being able to offset some of that cost by hiring them out to SpaceX, is a bonus.

After Shuttle retires, will SpaceX be the only user for a couple of years? Or does someone else use them?


What would stop them from hiring themselves out as a Charter Fishing Boat?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kkattula on 11/23/2010 11:33 am
What would stop them from hiring themselves out as a Charter Fishing Boat?

Nasa's not allowed to compete with commercial operations?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/23/2010 02:54 pm
That said, I still can't think how you'd go about refurbishing and certifying a used first stage for flight.

Uhhh.... Very carefully?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: hop on 11/23/2010 05:18 pm
As I stated in another thread, you can't just take the turbo, run it and say ok we'll fly that bit!!

Why not?
Discussed extensively here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21923.180
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/24/2010 01:06 am
That said, I still can't think how you'd go about refurbishing and certifying a used first stage for flight.

Uhhh.... Very carefully?
Yeh, quite.  But seriously, well more, I guess at least for the first couple of dozen, you'd strip everything down and do a bunch of NDT.  Then maybe even push them to distruction to see what breaks first.
Then someone's got to certify them.  For NASA contracts, I guess that's NASA but other commercial contracts, I think SpaceX would have to somehow be able to demonstrate continuing integrity in the reused bits and pieces to their customers. 
Guess the incentives would be reduced flight costs and compelling test data.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 11/24/2010 02:55 pm
Is it getting clearer that Spacex won't launch until next year? They can't launch until after shuttle Discovery because of the recovery boat situation and recovery requires a 7 day turnaround after the shuttle launch. Also, Spacex still needs to do the test fire. Can they test fire at pad 40 with Discovery on it's launch pad?  With the possibilty that managers may postpone the Discovery launch until Christmas time, It seems the odds are getting slim for a December 7th time frame.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 11/24/2010 03:03 pm
Yes they can test fire with Discovery on the pad. Other launches have occurred with Shuttles on pads.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/24/2010 03:04 pm
They can do the static fire with rockets on other pads, it's those other pads that would potentially have to be evacuated of personnel that day. It remains to be seen how long it will take SpaceX to be ready to do that. Obviously, Dragon is, again, the pacing item here.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: go4mars on 11/24/2010 03:38 pm
Any chance that SpaceX will launch before Discovery?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/24/2010 04:41 pm
Any chance that SpaceX will launch before Discovery?

I imagine that if the delay gets too crazy (-133 being moved to CY2011) then SpaceX will just launch in the next available slot.  That all depends on assessment of the fix to the SSET though.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: simonbp on 11/24/2010 05:37 pm
Recovery is a lot easier than reuse... I have no doubt SpaceX will be able to pull off first stage recovery. Maybe not this time, but eventually.

They did actually recover a first stage from a Gemini-Titan launch. It broke in half, so it's only the top part that made it, and the part where it broke was kind caved in. Still, it's not unreasonable that sufficiently strengthened, a minimally-modified first stage could be recovered intact.

I've got a few pictures of that stage from when it was in the public area of the museum in Huntsville (it's now back in storage); I'll see if I can find where I put them...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 11/24/2010 05:39 pm
Any chance that SpaceX will launch before Discovery?

Discovery just got bumped to NET dec 17th - It will be interesting to hear if SpaceX will go withtheir current Date in Early december as they could be off the pad well before that date thus freeing up the recovery ships with time to spare...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 11/24/2010 07:40 pm
So F9-Dragon launch is NET Dec 7 or 8, and STS-133 launch is NET Dec 17.  That's only nine or ten days.

Somewhere it said that SpaceX can't launch F9-Dragon until seven days after a Shuttle launch because of the time needed to sail back, cycle, and relaunch the SRB recovery ships.

How long BEFORE the Shuttle launch would SpaceX have to launch to garauntee that the recovery ships would be ready to retrieve the SRBs?  Does the increased downrange spashdown distance of the F9 first stage, compared to the SRBs, increase the time?  Has NASA asked for any additional time margin? 

It would be hard to imagine NASA risking a Shuttle launch delay because someone had rented the recovery ships.  (Imagining a parent with hands on hips asking for car keys when a teenager misses cerfew)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/24/2010 08:21 pm
Jim always says that reserving the range is first come first serve, but that doesn't mean that the recovery boats work the same way. SpaceX has the range for 12/7, and Shuttle can't just bump them off, but if SpaceX can't reserve the recovery boat, then they'll almost certainly stand down.

If SpaceX already has the recovery boat "reserved" (or however that works) for their launch window, then can Shuttle really intervene to keep those boats at port?

SpaceX wouldn't be able to slip their launch into a window that conflicts with the recovery assets of an existing Shuttle window, so why should Shuttle be able to slip into a window that conflicts with an existing SpaceX window?

One can argue that the Shuttle launch is more "important" or faces tighter launch window constraints with beta angle and other ISS traffic, but I don't buy it. And if they argue that SpaceX has to stand down because Shuttle can't fly over the new year, that would be quite laughable and flat-out embarrassing for a program that lived through the Y2K frenzy and yet failed to address this problem.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 11/24/2010 08:24 pm
It would be hard to imagine NASA risking a Shuttle launch delay because someone had rented the recovery ships.  (Imagining a parent with hands on hips asking for car keys when a teenager misses cerfew)

Recovery is not essential to the mission.

I'm intrigued whether SpaceX would forgo a before-Shuttle launch date just because the SRB recovery boat is unavailable because of an imminent Shuttle launch? IE just accept no attempt at first stage recovery on this mission.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 11/24/2010 08:26 pm
If SpaceX already has the recovery boat "reserved" (or however that works) for their launch window, then can Shuttle really intervene to keep those boats at port?

It's Shuttle infrastructure, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that Shuttle would be it's priority.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/24/2010 08:32 pm
This speculation assumes STS-133 is the only thing determining when COTS-1 will fly. Here's a thought - if SpaceX really are ready, what is preventing them from moving the launch date to the left now that Shuttle is definitely off the table? One such obvious answer would be: because they're not ready yet.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/24/2010 08:35 pm
Recovery is not essential to the mission.

I'm intrigued whether SpaceX would forgo a before-Shuttle launch date just because the SRB recovery boat is unavailable because of an imminent Shuttle launch? IE just accept no attempt at first stage recovery on this mission.

cheers, Martin

Recovery is not essential to which mission?

SpaceX will not launch if they do not have the recovery boat. FWIW, I guarantee it. They really want that stage back to analyze and optimize the design. Recovery is not essential to the mission, but they will not sacrifice the opportunity.

Is recovery essential to STS-133? I'm pretty sure that the SRB segments will not be used on STS-135 and certainly not on STS-134. Could they be reused for a future 5-seg booster? I don't know. But SSP will probably consider recovery essential just because that's their SOP.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/24/2010 08:43 pm

Is recovery essential to STS-133?

Yes, for postflight inspection
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/24/2010 08:47 pm
This speculation assumes STS-133 is the only thing determining when COTS-1 will fly. Here's a thought - if SpaceX really are ready, what is preventing them from moving the launch date to the left now that Shuttle is definitely off the table? One such obvious answer would be: because they're not ready yet.

You could be right. They're still to do their planned static fire. That would keep them from moving to the left.

They wouldn't have wanted to do their static fire while the Shuttle team was feverishly working at the pad to try to make their 12/3 launch window, since the LC39A would have to be evacuated for the F9 static fire. Now that Shuttle is delayed, mostly for off-pad rather than on-pad work, SpaceX could go ahead with their static fire if they are actually ready to do so.

Do we know whether they plan to load Dragon propellants before or after the static fire? If they load before, then they might not want to go ahead with the static fire unless they know they have their launch opportunity with recovery boat.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/24/2010 08:48 pm
Is recovery essential to STS-133?
Yes, for postflight inspection

Yeah. Same rationale as SpaceX. Neither will launch without recovery assets.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/24/2010 08:58 pm
They're still to do their planned static fire. That would keep them from moving to the left.

Hell, their plan was always to have the static fire some 4-5 days before launch and we're still more than two weeks away from Dec 7th so there would be enough room to move to the left.

Those two-weeks-before are coincidentally about the time I would expect a new delay announcement. Would be nice to be shown otherwise, though.

Quote
Do we know whether they plan to load Dragon propellants before or after the static fire?

I'm trying to think of a reason why they'd do a firing with an empty Dragon. Why wouldn't have they done the firing during the wet dress rehearsal then? Dragon is supposed to be space-worthy for extended periods of time so I'd assume hypergol storage in the tanks wouldn't pose the same problems as with Delta II 2nd stage tanks/valves.

On the other hand, they do appear to be paranoid (maybe the wrong word... let's say "extra cautious") about this so a firing with an empty Dragon, rollback to the hangar, fueling, final flight readiness review, rollout and launch isn't really implausible.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/24/2010 10:01 pm
I think the consideration WRT hyper loading is the safety of the ground crew. They don't want that stuff loaded in the spacecraft on the ground for longer than necessary, even if Dragon is designed to store the propellants for a long duration on orbit.

I suspect they'll do the hyper loading before the static fire, then rollback and rollout for launch in roughly the 7-day timeframe that they've previously mentioned (don't know where ugordon got the 4-5 days from). If the vehicle hasn't rolled out by the evening of Dec 1, then I doubt they're launching on Dec 7.

So if they're going for this window, they need to commit to hyper loading within a week from now. If the situation with Shuttle is causing uncertainty about recovery assets on Dec 7/8, then they may not have positive "flight rationale" to proceed.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: wintermuted on 11/24/2010 10:09 pm
With the thanksgiving holiday this week which extends through the weekend for many who travel, full work capacity will only really be available again next monday. That only leaves a week and a day before the 7th for static fire and launch prep so a shift to the left is unlikely.

Also, maybe a minor difference but they've said publicly more than once how important re-usability is, so recovering the first stage for the purpose of evaluating reuse is probably as much a reason if not more compared with NDT or trimming operating margins.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/24/2010 11:04 pm
(don't know where ugordan got the 4-5 days from).

Fixed that for you.

Anyway: http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/status.html
Quote
If liftoff remains set for Dec. 7, engineers plan an on-the-pad test firing Dec. 3 of the rocket's nine first stage engines.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/25/2010 12:51 am
Under 2 weeks now and no sign of a delay announcement.  Could this be the real deal?
Jim's silent also!!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/25/2010 07:44 am
Jim's silent also!!

Yes, since his November prediction also fell through.  ;D
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/25/2010 10:29 am
my prediction was an NET
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 11/26/2010 03:47 am
Good point.

Still no delay notification... Any new prediction?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 11/26/2010 07:11 am
Good point.

Still no delay notification... Any new prediction?

Thursday was an holiday in the US, and some businesses take Friday off too. You probably wont hear anything till Monday at the earliest.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 11/26/2010 05:14 pm
SFN is talking about Discovery going on Dec 17 at the earliest, but that it could well slip to February or March.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/101124prcb/index3.html
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: sdsds on 11/27/2010 10:28 pm
Personal opinion:  this coming week (beginning Monday, Nov. 29), Elon Musk needs to do "the leadership thing."  SpaceX isn't betting the company on this one launch, but nothing else they have attempted has been as vital.  It's not just the cult of personality:  SpaceX clearly has that but in this case it's more.  The organization is not that large; Musk can have near-perfect visibility into what's going on.  Unless there's internal dissent based on hard fact he needs to rally the troops and push them on to fly the mission with the vehicle they have, before STS-133 launches.  A successful mission now, complete to capsule recovery, will lock in the perception that SpaceX is changing the essence of human spaceflight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/27/2010 10:35 pm
Unless there's internal dissent based on hard fact he needs to rally the troops and push them on to fly the mission with the vehicle they have, before STS-133 launches.

With all of their delays so far, why should it make any difference whether they launch before or after STS-133?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 11/27/2010 10:36 pm
Personal opinion:  this coming week (beginning Monday, Nov. 29), Elon Musk needs to do "the leadership thing."  ...  Unless there's internal dissent based on hard fact he needs to rally the troops and push them on to fly the mission with the vehicle they have, before STS-133 launches.

What the heck? Why does it matter who launches first? ST-133 was scheduled to fly before COTS 1 for quite a while, and that didn't signify the end of the world.

I'd love to see it launch ASAP, but COTS1 should launch when it's ready. Not before. To do otherwise just to launch before another vehicle, *that* would be a failure of leadership.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 11/27/2010 10:38 pm
SFN is talking about Discovery going on Dec 17 at the earliest, but that it could well slip to February or March.

It's not jus SFN, but NASA explicitly stating STS-133 is NET 12/17

NASA SETS SHUTTLE DISCOVERY'S LAUNCH FOR NO EARLIER THAN DEC. 17

WASHINGTON -- NASA managers have targeted space shuttle Discovery's launch for no earlier than Dec. 17. Shuttle managers determined more tests and analysis are needed before proceeding with the STS-133 mission.
....
The next status review by the PRCB will be Thursday, Dec. 2. If managers clear Discovery for launch on Dec. 17, the preferred time is approximately 8:51 p.m. EST.

For STS-133 crew and mission information, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/shuttle 

That gives about ten days between the SpaceX launch and the earliest possible Shuttle launch.  To me this says that any new SpaceX delay will be for internal reasons, not range conflict or SRB retrieval ship scheduling, but just barely.

Fitting the Shuttle mission in before the Year End Roll Over still requires resolution of multiple issues.  SpaceX may have opportunities throughout December.

Thursday's NASA announcement is only five days before the NET launch date for Falcon 9.  Talk about down to the wire!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tigerade on 11/27/2010 11:04 pm
There's no word of delay and Dec 7th is less than two weeks away.  I think they will be do a static test fire this coming week, and then a launch attempt the week after.  I really haven't heard anything of delays.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: sdsds on 11/28/2010 01:10 am
If SpaceX has evidence either Falcon or Dragon is not ready, they shouldn't launch.  That was the "internal dissent based on hard fact" bit.  But this is not a good moment for unfounded timidity.  The availability of a launch opportunity before STS-133 is serendipitous, but U.S. spaceflight is at a crossroads.  If they truly want to be a company that changes the course of history they should fix their little problems, seize the day, and light their candle.

I do not mean to belittle the effort required to resolve whatever issues remain with the launch vehicle and payload, and fully realize that heroic 80 hour work weeks are not sustainable indefinitely.  I do however mean to suggest that "now" would be a good time for the organization as a whole to muster that level of effort.

The company would survive a mission failure, but if in situations like this they do not push forward and make the attempt, they will lose their magical lustre and become -- as some insinuate is quickly becoming the case -- just one more piece of the OldSpace infrastructure.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/28/2010 01:41 am
I think that, all things considered, a successful mission is more important than launching before STS-133. Elon has said multiple times (paraphrasing): there's always more testing that could be done, but at a certain point there are diminishing returns, and that's when it's time to launch.

I can't imagine that SpaceX is suffering from "no-go fever". If they don't take the 12/7-8 launch window (and it isn't because of conflicts with the recovery boat), then they're still having some problems with Dragon.

It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to slip the launch date again. It would look worse if they launched their new spacecraft and it failed to perform. The mainstream media probably won't pick up a slipped launch date. They'll definitely pick up the failure of a commercial spacecraft planned to partially take over from NASA.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 11/28/2010 01:59 pm
If SpaceX has evidence either Falcon or Dragon is not ready, they shouldn't launch.  That was the "internal dissent based on hard fact" bit.  But this is not a good moment for unfounded timidity.  The availability of a launch opportunity before STS-133 is serendipitous, but U.S. spaceflight is at a crossroads.  If they truly want to be a company that changes the course of history they should fix their little problems, seize the day, and light their candle.

I do not mean to belittle the effort required to resolve whatever issues remain with the launch vehicle and payload, and fully realize that heroic 80 hour work weeks are not sustainable indefinitely.  I do however mean to suggest that "now" would be a good time for the organization as a whole to muster that level of effort.

The company would survive a mission failure, but if in situations like this they do not push forward and make the attempt, they will lose their magical lustre and become -- as some insinuate is quickly becoming the case -- just one more piece of the OldSpace infrastructure.

I have the opposite view - they need to launch whenever they can to maximise their chances of success. If that's later, so be it.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: AlexCam on 11/28/2010 02:19 pm

I have the opposite view - they need to launch whenever they can to maximise their chances of success. If that's later, so be it.

cheers, Martin

Agreed, you only launch when you are absolutely sure to have tackled all issues in detail and are 100% confident you can't do more.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Mike_1179 on 11/29/2010 02:40 am
How is anything 100% assured?  You can't model everything on the ground, or only at impractical costs.  Instead, you choose to model or test things which are similar to or representative of the real world situation. 

Passing these gives higher confidence, but you'll never get "100% confidence".  Deciding when you've tested appropriately is not something that comes quickly; it's not as simple as "we'll just test everything more until we're totally sure everything is fine".
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: sdsds on 11/29/2010 03:06 am
they need to launch whenever they can to maximise their chances of success.

SpaceX needs to launch COTS Demo 1 when the success of that flight will maximize the likelihood of SpaceX building a successful business.

To see this, look at the extremes:  would it be prudent for SpaceX to slip the flight three weeks if doing so substantially increased the probability of a successful flight?  Sure.

Three months, though?  Maybe.  But what about three years?  Surely you agree that in what is ultimately a business decision, other factors come into play eventually?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 11/29/2010 05:38 am
they need to launch whenever they can to maximise their chances of success.

SpaceX needs to launch COTS Demo 1 when the success of that flight will maximize the likelihood of SpaceX building a successful business.

To see this, look at the extremes:  would it be prudent for SpaceX to slip the flight three weeks if doing so substantially increased the probability of a successful flight?  Sure.

Three months, though?  Maybe.  But what about three years?  Surely you agree that in what is ultimately a business decision, other factors come into play eventually?

Of course those factors come into play. But to launch just to beat another LV's scheduled launch - THAT is your suggestion that most of us reacted to.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kkattula on 11/29/2010 09:48 am
...
Three months, though?  Maybe.  But what about three years?  Surely you agree that in what is ultimately a business decision, other factors come into play eventually?

Right now, I think they could delay up to 6 months without significant issues. But they'd need the flight to be successful and do Demo 2 in the second half of next year.  However, the optimum would be a flight in next month or so.

I don't think the FAA would have signed off on Dragon if it wasn't ready, so I expect right now they're working through any remaining 'nits' and practicing procedures, doing simulations, etc. 

Unless something critical shows up, I reckon hotfire this week and launch in two, is highly likely.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: hop on 11/29/2010 04:58 pm
I don't think the FAA would have signed off on Dragon if it wasn't ready,
AFAIK the FAA only signs off on F9/Dragon having acceptably low odds of harming uninvolved bystanders and their property. Mission success is not their concern.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/29/2010 09:49 pm
SFN reports a change in the launch window, it's now 1403-1722 GMT. Still remains at Dec 7.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/29/2010 11:17 pm
SFN reports a change in the launch window, it's now 1403-1722 GMT. Still remains at Dec 7.

Well, that could be interpreted as subtly good news wrt the launch date. If they're fine tuning their launch window, then maybe they're done slipping their launch date?

I don't remember for sure what the window used to be, but I think I remember the window opening at around 8:30 EST. Did they just shift it roughly 30 minutes later to wait for better sunlight in the late fall?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 11/30/2010 01:46 am
I don't think the FAA would have signed off on Dragon if it wasn't ready,
AFAIK the FAA only signs off on F9/Dragon having acceptably low odds of harming uninvolved bystanders and their property. Mission success is not their concern.


Right. Of course there is the possibility of a Dragon malfunction affecting that safety, but that's only a handful of the myriad possible failures that can occur.

Well, that could be interpreted as subtly good news wrt the launch date. If they're fine tuning their launch window, then maybe they're done slipping their launch date?

With 8 days to go, they're making an adjustment to their plans that is not a slip.

At face value, that is a small positive sign. If they were seriously thinking about a slip, there's less reason to bother changing the registered launch window.

Still, it doesn't by any means preclude a slip, either.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Rocket Guy on 11/30/2010 01:55 am
As of today they are planning the test fire Friday and launch on Tuesday.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 11/30/2010 02:14 am
By your matter-of-fact wording I am assuming that this is real information, not speculation or opinion.   It is a pleasure to read it.  Thank you.

Can I also assume that if you knew a scheduled time for the test fire that you would have included it?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/30/2010 02:39 am
As of today they are planning the test fire Friday and launch on Tuesday.

Fabulous news!!

I suppose that time frame indicates that they're loading Dragon propellants before the static fire. They'll probably roll it back into the hangar between the static fire and the launch attempt, though.

So I guess they finally ironed out their hyper loading and finished all their sim work for the third time and now it's time to light the candle. They haven't rushed into this at all, so I like their chances.

Can somebody well-placed please let us know when the stack is vertical?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 11/30/2010 02:54 am
I know SpaceX hanger is usually a "t-shirt" environment.  while the Dragon is loaded and horizontal, will the need to wear any safety equipment while in the hanger with the Falcon?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 11/30/2010 05:46 am
I know SpaceX hanger is usually a "t-shirt" environment.  while the Dragon is loaded and horizontal, will the need to wear any safety equipment while in the hanger with the Falcon?

There is no need to wear safety equipment to be around a spacecraft with hypergols loaded on board (this is true at KSC, CCAFS, and even Astrotech).  But there needs to be toxic vapor detectors and ELSA's in  the facilities and sniff checks done periodically.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: sdsds on 11/30/2010 05:51 am
to launch just to beat another LV's scheduled launch

Hmm, I take your point.  It isn't a race, and I did not suggest they should "launch just to beat" STS-133.  But with Shuttle not launching there is an open window of opportunity right now.  Sure, there are other windows, but a success during the one that follows STS-133 would not be as big a win.

The stakes they are gambling are frighteningly high.  Forget FY2011.  When do you think the Obama administration will finalize the FY2012 budget proposal they will deliver to Congress on Feb 1, 2011?  Do you think a COTS success before that date could effect the contents of that proposal?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 11/30/2010 06:33 am
to launch just to beat another LV's scheduled launch

Hmm, I take your point.  It isn't a race, and I did not suggest they should "launch just to beat" STS-133.

OK, I did take that as implied by your post. I agree that a delay of many months would cause concern as to their readiness (eg minor ammunition for anti-Commercial elements in Congress).


Quote
But with Shuttle not launching there is an open window of opportunity right now.  Sure, there are other windows, but a success during the one that follows STS-133 would not be as big a win.

The stakes they are gambling are frighteningly high.  Forget FY2011.  When do you think the Obama administration will finalize the FY2012 budget proposal they will deliver to Congress on Feb 1, 2011?  Do you think a COTS success before that date could effect the contents of that proposal?

I would be much more worried that a rushed failure before the FY11 appropriations process is complete would be major ammunition for Congress to bias the budget away from Commercial Crew.

cheers, Martin

PS I'm not suggesting that they are rushing.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 11/30/2010 07:48 am
Can somebody well-placed please let us know when the stack is vertical?

Based  on previous experience, I'd assume the stack will go vertical Thursday for a static fire on Friday.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 11/30/2010 05:52 pm
an Aviation week article (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=news&cd=3&ved=0CEgQqQIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationweek.com%2Faw%2Fgeneric%2Fstory_generic.jsp%3Fchannel%3Dawst%26id%3Dnews%2Fawst%2F2010%2F11%2F29%2FAW_11_29_2010_p28-271778.xml%26headline%3DFalcon%25209%2520Static%2520Fire%2520Test%2520Nears&ei=fEb1TPiCH4P_8AaRl9ieBw&usg=AFQjCNEOhVnRflE83JyW32rga0uqUKu_aQ).
Hope we start hearing about activity at the cape soon....
jb
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ELinder on 11/30/2010 07:46 pm
I certainly hope they say when in the launch window they're aiming for once they get closer. The window opens just after the KSC Visitor Center opens, but the buses to the Saturn V building don't start until 10am. That's where I watched the first Falcon launch, and it's a great place to watch from.

Erich
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 11/30/2010 08:23 pm
It's a good bet they'll aim for the start of the launch window in order to provide time to stop or restart the countdown in case there are complications.

However, it's also a good bet they'll announce the launch time before you need to decide whether to try to get to the Saturn V Center or not.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 11/30/2010 08:44 pm
not sure how new this is..
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/cots_project.html

Quote
The first SpaceX Falcon 9 demonstration launch for NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program is targeted for liftoff on Tuesday, Dec. 7. Liftoff will occur from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The launch window extends from 9:03 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. EST. If necessary, launch opportunities also are available on Dec. 8 and Dec. 9 with the same window.

and this..time stamp of today on it..
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-168_SpaceX_Launch.html

nice little tidbit....
Quote

Coverage will include live streaming and text updates of the final five minutes of the countdown. On-demand streaming video, podcast and photos of the launch will be available shortly after liftoff. To access these features, go to NASA’s COTS website at:
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 11/30/2010 09:07 pm
NASA's coverage will start 5 minutes before liftoff. Hopefully, Spacex's own coverage will start before that time.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: notsorandom on 11/30/2010 09:52 pm
Does anyone know what kind of coverage will be provided throughout the flight? The Aviation Week article said they were looking at reentry after four orbits. If thats the plan it would be nice to see live real time coverage of the various tests and then reentry. Certainly would made an interesting afternoon of watching.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 11/30/2010 10:26 pm
Does anyone know what kind of coverage will be provided throughout the flight? The Aviation Week article said they were looking at reentry after four orbits. If thats the plan it would be nice to see live real time coverage of the various tests and then reentry. Certainly would made an interesting afternoon of watching.

I think that the best we could practically expect is a live blog from MCC-X with text updates of mission status. I doubt we'll get any live video downlink from Dragon on orbit. We'll probably get an edited "highlights" video posted after the fact, at least if Dragon is recovered intact.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 11/30/2010 11:17 pm
".. up to four orbits" is more than has been discussed previously, AFAIK.  I remember two orbits and about 3 hours.  That puts California pretty much where the East coast was at launch. 

Knowing the launch azimuth, can anyone determine the lattitude of the flight path over the west coast for each of the orbits?  Which of these is reasonable?  Are there intersections where a shiip could sit and retrieve on more than one orbit?  They can't  have a ship at every location.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/01/2010 02:31 am
not sure how new this is..
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/cots_project.html

It mentions media details and a prelaunch news conference scheduled for the day before.

Their twitter feed (also copied on their webcast page) also links to this with the text: "NASA announces plans for first Dragon test launch"

http://twitter.com/SpaceXer

It looks pretty solid that December 7 is the intended date.


Unrelated - It seems a private individual had already registered the handle "SpaceX" on twitter. From a quick search, it doesn't seem like there's any actualy connection between him and the company.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/01/2010 05:00 am
Aviation Week has Dragon doing four orbits, which is news to me, while SFN is repeating the earlier estimate of one to three orbits. Which do we believe is correct?

SFN also mentions that in addition to the NASA prelaunch briefing on Monday, there will also be another briefing about one hour after landing. So at the very least we won't have to wait too long to hear the good news. I'm feeling optimistic.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 12/01/2010 05:13 am
Unrelated - It seems a private individual had already registered the handle "SpaceX" on twitter. From a quick search, it doesn't seem like there's any actualy connection between him and the company.

'SpaceXer' appears to be an official SpaceX twitter account.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 12/01/2010 04:33 pm
Static fire on Friday if everything goes right.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: simonbp on 12/01/2010 07:59 pm
Aviation Week has Dragon doing four orbits, which is news to me, while SFN is repeating the earlier estimate of one to three orbits. Which do we believe is correct?

"Up to four" may be what they mean, depending on various factors..
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/01/2010 08:12 pm
Unrelated - It seems a private individual had already registered the handle "SpaceX" on twitter. From a quick search, it doesn't seem like there's any actualy connection between him and the company.

'SpaceXer' appears to be an official SpaceX twitter account.

Yep. It looks like someone else had already registered "SpaceX," so they had to settle for adding the '-er.'

Someone has from time to time posted webcam shots of the pad. Does anyone know to find those?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/01/2010 08:16 pm
Someone has from time to time posted webcam shots of the pad. Does anyone know to find those?

From here? http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 12/01/2010 09:03 pm
Someone has from time to time posted webcam shots of the pad. Does anyone know to find those?

From here? http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/

That's where I look for live KSC video.  SLC 40 used to be on channels 12 & 13.  Right now 12 is doing a weather map and 13 has been dark for a while.

PS Weather.com forecast for Tuesday is 0% chance of precipitiation, with partial clouds and a high of 66 degrees F.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/01/2010 10:07 pm
http://twitter.com/SpaceXer/status/10095788914905088

"SpaceX will webcast our static fire Friday AM. Falcon 9 will stand at the pad & test 9 Merlin engines at full force. SpaceX.com"
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/01/2010 11:06 pm

That's where I look for live KSC video.  SLC 40 used to be on channels 12 & 13.  Right now 12 is doing a weather map and 13 has been dark for a while.

PS Weather.com forecast for Tuesday is 0% chance of precipitiation, with partial clouds and a high of 66 degrees F.

Thank you. So they're not continuously streaming? Oh well, still potentially useful.

Weather forecast looks great. Now if we could just have a forecast of the number of boaters who ignore restrictions.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/02/2010 03:49 pm
Now that we're getting close to the action, and there seems to be a little confusion about how and where to observe upcoming events, I thought I'd make a general post about the various available resources. I know this will seem remedial to most of you, but there are always lurkers and newcomers who may not have picked these up yet.

SpaceX social media-

Recently added to the bottom of http://www.spacex.com/ are links to all the official SpaceX social media:

Twitter:       http://twitter.com/SpaceXer and http://twitter.com/SpaceXmissions (these two seem to replace all previous twitter accounts)
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/SpaceX (you don't need a Facebook account to view this page)
Youtube:    http://www.youtube.com/spacexchannel (mostly the same as the SpaceX video page, but better rez for streaming)

The SpaceX update page: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php has not changed since Oct 4, social media accounts for the bulk of direct, albeit cursory updates since then.

The SpaceX webcast page: http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php from which all previous "live" webcasts have streamed, has changed in format in the last few weeks. It was up for the previous WDR, and likely so for upcoming events as well.
 
The NASA/KSC camera and/or video pages are:

http://countdown.ksc.nasa.gov/elv/ Four streaming cameras, with Windows Media Player or Real Player links for full-screen watching. These may or may not be on or pointed at SpaceX's pad (SLC-40) during actual events. Includes a count-down clock and other data.
 
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/video45lh.html These are video capture/stills from cameras all around KSC, some of which may be pointed towards SLC-40. This link will take you straight to the Max refresh rate of every 45 sec, but you can adjust this by going to the bottom of the page. This page and the previous one are cross-linked.

http://www.radioreference.com/apps/audio/?action=wp&feedId=705 This is a live streaming scanner feed of KSC communications, you can listen to two channels in stereo, left side = KSC trunked system /right side = Shuttle Landing Facility Tower, NASA weather aircraft, and support aircraft. This feed was very active during Falcon9 Flight 1 launch, and may be for the upcoming hotfire and launch as well.

If you prefer your live video accompanied by asinine chatting, you can load the SFN mission status center: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/status.html the video source will probably be one of those above, but if for some reason all of these are embargoed or unavailable they might have a shaky long-distance camera aimed at the pad.
 
Saving the best for last, of course, are the LIVE events threads here at NSF.

Go Falcon, Go Dragon!

Edit: New additional twitter acct
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/03/2010 02:17 am
FAA, why haven't you updated your web site?
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/upcoming_launch/
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/03/2010 06:14 am
Thanks very much corrodedNut! It will be 12:33 am here at the opening of the launch window, so hopefully there won't be too many delays. Looking forward to the NASA coverage as the hi-res stream from Space-X is too much for my ADSL modem.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: FinalFrontier on 12/03/2010 06:21 am
ok! I didn't think we were this close to launch, and have been tied up with work. So, when is the static fire and when is the current launch attempt? I just have not been able to keep up with the news lately due to work.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/03/2010 06:54 am
ok! I didn't think we were this close to launch, and have been tied up with work. So, when is the static fire and when is the current launch attempt? I just have not been able to keep up with the news lately due to work.

Static fire in just over six hours (Friday Dec 3 at 9:00AM EST). Webcast starts at 8:00AM EST.

Launch is scheduled for Tuesday Dec 7 at 9:03AM EST with the launch window extending to 12:22PM EST.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chandonn on 12/03/2010 11:16 am
Update on Static Fire:

- Now scheduled for 12pm EST
- Webcast starts at 11am EST


http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23454.msg665293;topicseen#new
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/03/2010 12:17 pm
Spacex has on it's header the first ever picture of the finished Dragon going to static fire. She's beautiful! Nice capsule.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/03/2010 12:55 pm
Rollout
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 12/03/2010 12:58 pm
Rollout
where did you get that pic?  going to be fun to see the pics they are taking..if successful mission I'm sure they will be doing lots of stories on it..PR blitz...
jb
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/03/2010 01:01 pm
That's one clean machine. It doesn't get any better than that. It was worth the wait.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/03/2010 01:30 pm
At some point, SpaceX is going to have to start doing things on time at least some of the time. Maybe not this launch. Maybe not even the next launch. But at some point the learning curve is over, and it becomes unacceptable to miss nearly every single deadline they ever set.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/03/2010 01:32 pm
Oh poo, butters are you saying that the shuttle Discovery launch was on time are you saying the last Delta 4 Heavy launch was on time....please!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/03/2010 01:33 pm
At some point, SpaceX is going to have to start doing things on time at least some of the time. Maybe not this launch. Maybe not even the next launch. But at some point the learning curve is over, and it becomes unacceptable to miss nearly every single deadline they ever set.
They set deadlines? I only remember things like "No-earlier-than" dates. And no, NET is not the same as "deadline."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/03/2010 01:40 pm
Oh poo, butters are you saying that the shuttle discovery launch is on time are you saying the last Delta 4 launch is on time....please!

All launch providers miss their launch dates occasionally or even frequently, but the better providers meet their schedules more often than not, and nobody routinely slips every launch multiple times and stays in business.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/03/2010 01:42 pm
nobody routinely slips every launch multiple times and stays in business.

I think you'll agree SpaceX is still far from "routinely", at least when it comes to Falcon 9 and especially Dragon.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 12/03/2010 02:04 pm
Rollout
Really high resolution pic at spacexer's twitpic page (http://twitpic.com/photos/SpaceXer)

http://twitpic.com/3chy52

edit..well..lots of pics now being added..
check out this dragon pic...
http://twitpic.com/3ci01m
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/03/2010 02:48 pm
check out this dragon pic...
http://twitpic.com/3ci01m

Is it me, or does the Dragon nosecone appear to be a 3-piece fairing and not two pieces usually depicted?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/03/2010 03:11 pm
Slippity, slippity... NET 12:45PM now.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/03/2010 03:19 pm
check out this dragon pic...
http://twitpic.com/3ci01m

Is it me, or does the Dragon nosecone appear to be a 3-piece fairing and not two pieces usually depicted?

I saw that too, maybe just mold marks, but the "hinge" (?) for the nose cap is now covered with an aerodynamic fairing.  Doesn't appear to be another one (or two) on the opposite side.

I'm starting to think they've gone back to the original one-piece nosecap jettison.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: HOTTOL on 12/03/2010 03:23 pm
check out this dragon pic...
http://twitpic.com/3ci01m

Is it me, or does the Dragon nosecone appear to be a 3-piece fairing and not two pieces usually depicted?

Do you know if and where cameras are fitted on the payload part?
I guess the second stage one is stil there.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/03/2010 03:25 pm
Hinge might be a bad description. Originally the nose cap was to hinge back during docking. Now it just seperates from the capsule.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/03/2010 03:28 pm
Do you know if and where cameras are fitted on the payload part?
I guess the second stage one is stil there.

If previous flights are an indication, the camera will will look "up" and "down".
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: HOTTOL on 12/03/2010 04:10 pm
Do you know if and where cameras are fitted on the payload part?
I guess the second stage one is stil there.

If previous flights are an indication, the camera will will look "up" and "down".

That I know and I saw it on Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 flights. But the camera has always been fitted on the second stage (apart from the Dragon drop test).
Do you know if there are more live camera on the trunk and/or Dragon for the comming flight ?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Hauerg on 12/03/2010 05:20 pm
At some point, SpaceX is going to have to start doing things on time at least some of the time. Maybe not this launch. Maybe not even the next launch. But at some point the learning curve is over, and it becomes unacceptable to miss nearly every single deadline they ever set.

1. An "NET" is not a deadline
2. What does this tell us about the Shuttle? Shouldn't it be able to launch on time by now? Guess what, it still isn't.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/03/2010 07:57 pm
Question: Why is the heatshield a camel color? I've never seen one with that color.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: simonbp on 12/03/2010 08:26 pm
Question: Why is the heatshield a camel color? I've never seen one with that color.

It's PICA-X: http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20090223

Only used beforehand on the Stardust capsule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_%28spacecraft%29

If Stardust is any indication, the heatshield will be pretty black by the time it hits the ocean...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/03/2010 08:29 pm
The launch hazard area and restricted airspace map have now been posted at http://www.patrick.af.mil/
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: FinalFrontier on 12/04/2010 06:56 pm
Question about this flight: Are they going to have cameras or a camera mounted on the dragon spacecraft? Is dragon going to be fully pressurized on this flight?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/04/2010 07:30 pm
Now that we're within 3 days of the scheduled launch date and a forecast can be made with a higher confidence level, how's the weather looking? Still favorable?

Edit: answering my own question, a weather forecast was issued by the 45th Weather Squadron: http://www.patrick.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070716-028.pdf

Doesn't look too good for the 7th, high winds are a concern. Conditions improve on 8th and 9th.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mnagy on 12/04/2010 07:43 pm
IIRC, the video streams from past flights always ended when they lost signal due to Earth curvature. Since they plan on making few orbits with dragon, can we assume that they have "enhanced" their communication capabilities so they can communicate with it even when it's out of reach (which I assume they will need to be able to do)? Or did they have these capabilities before, just not for the video?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/04/2010 07:46 pm
IIRC, the video streams from past flights always ended when they lost signal due to Earth curvature. Since they plan on making few orbits with dragon, can we assume that they have "enhanced" their communication capabilities so they can communicate with it even when it's out of reach (which I assume they will need to be able to do)? Or did they have these capabilities before, just not for the video?

There has to be ground stations to receive the signals.  Dragon is using TDRSS but probably not for video.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/04/2010 07:47 pm
IIRC, the video streams from past flights always ended when they lost signal due to Earth curvature. Since they plan on making few orbits with dragon, can we assume that they have "enhanced" their communication capabilities so they can communicate with it even when it's out of reach (which I assume they will need to be able to do)? Or did they have these capabilities before, just not for the video?
TDRS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDRS).
Dragon uses TDRS.
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php (and search for "TDRS" with your browser)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/04/2010 07:51 pm
Would using TDRSS for video require using a directional high or mid gain antenna?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/04/2010 07:51 pm
IIRC, the video streams from past flights always ended when they lost signal due to Earth curvature. Since they plan on making few orbits with dragon, can we assume that they have "enhanced" their communication capabilities so they can communicate with it even when it's out of reach (which I assume they will need to be able to do)? Or did they have these capabilities before, just not for the video?
TDRS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDRS).
Dragon uses TDRS.
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php (and search for "TDRS" with your browser)

That may be only for TT&C and not video.  Need larger antenna with pointing for video thru TDRSS
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/04/2010 07:55 pm
IIRC, the video streams from past flights always ended when they lost signal due to Earth curvature. Since they plan on making few orbits with dragon, can we assume that they have "enhanced" their communication capabilities so they can communicate with it even when it's out of reach (which I assume they will need to be able to do)? Or did they have these capabilities before, just not for the video?
TDRS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDRS).
Dragon uses TDRS.
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php (and search for "TDRS" with your browser)

That may be only for TT&C and not video
That's true, however TDRSS has enough bandwidth for video (compressed), and SpaceX has tested TDRSS with the Dragon radio at that bandwidth:
Quote
The SpaceX communications flight hardware, developed with subcontractors Delta Microwave (Low Noise Amplifier), Quasonix (transmitter and receiver), and Haigh-Farr (antennas), emulated a complete Dragon spacecraft comm link, and successfully sent and received data through the TDRSS network. Commands were dispatched from our Hawthorne headquarters command station, to NASA JSC in Houston, across Texas to the TDRSS White Sands Ground Terminal, up to the TDRS 5 Spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit, and back down to the Dragon receiver on the ground in Hawthorne.

The test series demonstrated telemetry and command transmission at a variety of data rates up to 2.1 Mbps, and paves the way for using TDRSS on all fifteen of our Dragon missions for the COTS and Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) programs.
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/04/2010 08:02 pm
That's true, however TDRSS has enough bandwidth for video (compressed), and SpaceX has tested TDRSS with the Dragon radio at that bandwidth:


So what is TT&C going to use if video is going to use that bandwith.

Spacex is not going to waste TDRSS bandwith on useless video.  TDRSS time is expensive. 

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/04/2010 08:06 pm
That's true, however TDRSS has enough bandwidth for video (compressed), and SpaceX has tested TDRSS with the Dragon radio at that bandwidth:


So what is TT&C going to use if video is going to use that bandwith
How much bandwidth does TT&C need?
1Mbps is plenty for SD video, if compressed.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/04/2010 08:11 pm
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how great this capsule looks. It's a great achievement for a company with only 1,100 employees. Sometimes we look at the minute details but, sometimes it's nice to look back at the thing and take it all in. A really great job, Spacex employees should be celebrated. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/04/2010 08:14 pm
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how great this capsule looks.

5 person mockup company could do the same work if you are only interested in looks. 

Are you only interested in nuclear power plants that only look like they can contain all the radiation or are you interested in ones that can contain the radiation despite looks.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/04/2010 08:15 pm
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how great this capsule looks.

What's so great about it?  It's round and pointy on one end.   ???
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/04/2010 08:24 pm
I guess you guys have no artistic background. If you did you would see the beauty in it. It's like coming home with a new car. I'm not an engineer, I come from an artistic/design based background. So for me, design is something to be admired even when it's simple and functional.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: FinalFrontier on 12/04/2010 08:30 pm
I guess you guys have no artistic background. If you did you would see the beauty in it. It's like coming home with a new car. I'm not an engineer, I come from an artistic/design based background. So for me, design is something to be admired even when it's simple and functional.
No I agree with you actually. Dragon looks pretty cool!!! I mean its not a delta winged beast like Shuttle, but nothing will ever come close to that again. Still, it looks AWESOME imo.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/04/2010 08:38 pm
I'm sorry for being behind, but does anyone know the expected splash-down point and method of recovery?  Don't say "Pacific Ocean" as I don't really consider that a "point".
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/04/2010 08:46 pm
I guess you guys have no artistic background. If you did you would see the beauty in it. It's like coming home with a new car.

I don't get the analogy - a new car is all about that new car smell.   ;)  And I do have an artistic background (photography).  I don't see the beauty in Dragon.  It's a cone with a hemisphere on top.  It's all function, just like is should be.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/04/2010 08:47 pm
So for me, design is something to be admired even when it's simple and functional.

In aerospace and rocketry function often comes before form. Yes, it's sleek looking but mostly because it needs to be. Aerodynamics, etc.

Hey, was it you who "urged" SpaceX to paint the separation bolts and cable trunks white back when the first F9 was rolled out?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChuckC on 12/04/2010 09:01 pm
I guess you guys have no artistic background. If you did you would see the beauty in it. It's like coming home with a new car. I'm not an engineer, I come from an artistic/design based background. So for me, design is something to be admired even when it's simple and functional.
No I agree with you actually. Dragon looks pretty cool!!! I mean its not a delta winged beast like Shuttle, but nothing will ever come close to that again. Still, it looks AWESOME imo.


One thing that needs to be noted that is at least my opinion gives the Dragon an added coolness and beauty about it is the fact that this is a private sector space craft.  Yes, I know that Space X is getting both financial and technical help from NASA but it’s secondary not primary. Space X was going to do this with or with out NASA.

The point is that Space X is moving space flight into the private sector and the day the dragon carries its first crew to orbit it will break the government monopoly on manned space flight. That is a day will celibate. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChuckC on 12/04/2010 09:15 pm
I guess you guys have no artistic background. If you did you would see the beauty in it. It's like coming home with a new car.

I don't get the analogy - a new car is all about that new car smell.   ;)  And I do have an artistic background (photography).  I don't see the beauty in Dragon.  It's a cone with a hemisphere on top.  It's all function, just like is should be.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Even a pure functional form can be beautiful and while the Dragon is a cone with a hemisphere on top is also more than that. It is the way Space X packaged the function inside and out. The Soyuz is also a case pure functional form but I’ve always thought it was kind of ugly.   
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: HMXHMX on 12/04/2010 10:26 pm
I guess you guys have no artistic background. If you did you would see the beauty in it. It's like coming home with a new car. I'm not an engineer, I come from an artistic/design based background. So for me, design is something to be admired even when it's simple and functional.
No I agree with you actually. Dragon looks pretty cool!!! I mean its not a delta winged beast like Shuttle, but nothing will ever come close to that again. Still, it looks AWESOME imo.


One thing that needs to be noted that is at least my opinion gives the Dragon an added coolness and beauty about it is the fact that this is a private sector space craft.  Yes, I know that Space X is getting both financial and technical help from NASA but it’s secondary not primary. Space X was going to do this with or with out NASA.

The point is that Space X is moving space flight into the private sector and the day the dragon carries its first crew to orbit it will break the government monopoly on manned space flight. That is a day will celibate. 


While in no way diminishing the financial commitment SpaceX's investors have made, the taxpayers have made more.  More than 2:1, from published data.

But if it works, it will be a bargain, at less than the price of one or two Delta IVHs. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChefPat on 12/04/2010 11:31 pm

The point is that Space X is moving space flight into the private sector and the day the dragon carries its first crew to orbit it will break the government monopoly on manned space flight. That is a day I will celibate

I sure as hell won't!!! :o
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/04/2010 11:54 pm
Hey it was me who wished that they were painted white and look, they did it LOL. Kidding aside Falcon 9 is one classy looking ride. Let's hope it flies as good as it looks.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/04/2010 11:54 pm
Yes, I know that Space X is getting both financial and technical help from NASA but it’s secondary not primary. Space X was going to do this with or with out NASA.

That last sentence is, thanks to the option of hiding the posts of other habitual offenders, the least correct thing I've ever read on NSF.  The first sentence is not much better.  NASA has paid ~$360M so far and helped SpaceX on all of its design reviews.  Without NASA, SpaceX wouldn't have flown a F9 (since their original plan was incremental build up F1-F5-F9) and wouldn't have more than a Dragon OML on paper.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/05/2010 12:00 am
Yes, I know that Space X is getting both financial and technical help from NASA but it’s secondary not primary. Space X was going to do this with or with out NASA.

That last sentence is, thanks to the option of hiding the posts of other habitual offenders, the least correct thing I've ever read on NSF.  The first sentence is not much better.  NASA has paid ~$360M so far and helped SpaceX on all of its design reviews.  Without NASA, SpaceX wouldn't have flown a F9 (since their original plan was incremental build up F1-F5-F9) and wouldn't have more than a Dragon OML on paper.

360M is a heck of a bargin compared to Ares 1. Billions were put into the project yet even NASA'S expertise could not keep  CXP on a sane schedule.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/05/2010 12:15 am
I'll assume you're being sarcastic about NASA's expertise at architecting CxP.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/05/2010 12:28 am
Yes, I know that Space X is getting both financial and technical help from NASA but it’s secondary not primary. Space X was going to do this with or with out NASA.

That last sentence is, thanks to the option of hiding the posts of other habitual offenders, the least correct thing I've ever read on NSF.  The first sentence is not much better.  NASA has paid ~$360M so far and helped SpaceX on all of its design reviews.  Without NASA, SpaceX wouldn't have flown a F9 (since their original plan was incremental build up F1-F5-F9) and wouldn't have more than a Dragon OML on paper.

360M is a heck of a bargin compared to Ares 1. Billions were put into the project yet even NASA'S expertise could not keep  CXP on a sane schedule.

Yes, and for an encore we'll see how Congress' expertise compares...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 12/05/2010 01:05 am
Without NASA, SpaceX wouldn't have flown a F9 (since their original plan was incremental build up F1-F5-F9) and wouldn't have more than a Dragon OML on paper.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/15/222995/picture-uk-built-spacex-capsule-revealed.html

Ummm they where a little further along than that on a capsule for Falcon 5.

Your major point stands, but I think they would have been a little further along than a OML on paper.

If they had not won COTS, they would have likely put off Merlin 1C (originally it was to be a down the road upgrade), likely meaning the Falcon 1 Flight 3 would not have been as delayed (Flight 3 was delayed for Merlin 1C dev), and considering the trust transient of the Merlin 1C was the culprit of the Flight 3 failure, they might have got to orbit on Flight 3 instead of 4.

I don't think anyone could really say where SpaceX would be if they had not got COTS funding.  But I would wager that Falcon 1 would be launching regularly to generate the revenue for Falcon 5 instead of focusing so much on the MLV.

BTW the rest of your post I agree with 100%
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Nate_Trost on 12/05/2010 01:30 am
But I would wager that Falcon 1 would be launching regularly to generate the revenue for Falcon 5 instead of focusing so much on the MLV.

How? It's not like there are dozens of customers coming out of the woodwork for Falcon 1. Lets be generous and give them a flight rate of 3 a year at an average mission cost of $10 million, which is well over the listed Falcon 1 prices from years past.  On $30 million a year, it will take them years to pay off the development investment for the Falcon 1, much less generating revenue to fund a Falcon 5, much less fund Dragon.

Somebody would have had to sink several hundred million dollars of investment in to make it happen, it wasn't going to bootstrap from Falcon 1.

That UK capsule was a interesting piece of capsule prototyping. It also isn't a Dragon. I'd wager the cost of developing the flight software alone for Dragon is 20x-30x the cost of that prototype.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/05/2010 01:36 am
How? It's not like there are dozens of customers coming out of the woodwork for Falcon 1. Lets be generous and give them a flight rate of 3 a year at an average mission cost of $10 million, which is well over the listed Falcon 1 prices from years past.  On $30 million a year, it will take them years to pay off the development investment for the Falcon 1, much less generating revenue to fund a Falcon 5, much less fund Dragon.

Somebody would have had to sink several hundred million dollars of investment in to make it happen, it wasn't going to bootstrap from Falcon 1.

That UK capsule was a interesting piece of capsule prototyping. It also isn't a Dragon. I'd wager the cost of developing the flight software alone for Dragon is 20x-30x the cost of that prototype.

Faclon 1 was for two reasons to get legitimate so that you can attract investors. In addition Falcon 9 and Falcon 1 share as many systems as possible.  What NASA money did was allow them to skip falcon 5.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/05/2010 02:23 am
Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975. Apollo also started out as unmanned capsules with Apollo missions 4,5 and 6. That a company of 1,100 people is doing this is an outstanding accomplishment! Congrats' Spacex.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: david1971 on 12/05/2010 02:45 am
Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975.

With the return of X-37, I was wondering what was the last thing that went up on an Atlas that was designed to come back down.  Could it really be a Mercury capsule?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: vt_hokie on 12/05/2010 02:48 am
Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975.

Can't say I'm too enthused about us regressing back to capsules myself. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/05/2010 02:54 am
Growing up with capsules, I have no problem with them. It really is a falsehood to think that they are any less safe than a space plane. In fact capsules have been flying since the beginning of the space program and I think that only one manned vehicle's chutes failed to open and that was a early soyuz vehicle. They have a good safety record considering all of the launches using them.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: e of pi on 12/05/2010 02:57 am
Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975.

Can't say I'm too enthused about us regressing back to capsules myself. 

Personally I find capsules much cooler than space planes. It may be because I've never had one fly in my lifetime, but I think it's more because capsules are supposed to go places. Space planes go to space stations, or someplace else in LEO. Capsules are a bit more go-anywhere in my mind, especially Dragon with the speculation that it's capable of direct entry from lunar return or whatever. And yeah, it's pretty. The shuttles look...worn out, and they have in every image I've seen of them thats been taken since I was born.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/05/2010 03:01 am
Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975.

With the return of X-37, I was wondering what was the last thing that went up on an Atlas that was designed to come back down.  Could it really be a Mercury capsule?

Gambit SRV
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 12/05/2010 03:01 am
Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975.
Can't say I'm too enthused about us regressing back to capsules myself. 
Can't say that I see it as a regression, you just can't get much more fail safe than a capsule with an LAS on the way up and a ballistic capsule with redundant parachutes on the way down.

In an environment where 1 LOC event can mean the end of a program I would rather go for the reliability of survival over cost savings/performance.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Rhyshaelkan on 12/05/2010 03:35 am
Do we have a T-0 for Tuesday? and a window perhaps?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/05/2010 03:54 am
Space planes aren't meant to go places.  They're meant for entry cross-range.  Period.  Engineering is about requirements.  Form follows function.  Anything else is suboptimized.  Engineers prefer the most elegant solution, not the best looking one.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: NotGncDude on 12/05/2010 04:03 am
Yes, I know that Space X is getting both financial and technical help from NASA but it’s secondary not primary. Space X was going to do this with or with out NASA.

That last sentence is, thanks to the option of hiding the posts of other habitual offenders, the least correct thing I've ever read on NSF.  The first sentence is not much better.  NASA has paid ~$360M so far and helped SpaceX on all of its design reviews.  Without NASA, SpaceX wouldn't have flown a F9 (since their original plan was incremental build up F1-F5-F9) and wouldn't have more than a Dragon OML on paper.

"Help" ? What "help" ?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: vt_hokie on 12/05/2010 04:14 am
Space planes aren't meant to go places. 

Oh, I'd be more excited about Dragon if it was going to send humans beyond LEO anytime soon, rather than just ferrying supplies to ISS!

Still, there's nothing as beautiful as a spaceplane landing on a runway to me!  The X-37B landing images represent what 21st century spaceflight should look like, imo.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Patchouli on 12/05/2010 05:11 am
Space planes aren't meant to go places.  They're meant for entry cross-range.  Period.  Engineering is about requirements.  Form follows function.  Anything else is suboptimized.  Engineers prefer the most elegant solution, not the best looking one.

That's a bit over simplified as LM preferred a lifting body and only went to a ballistic capsule because of NASA's insistence.
It's very surprising they won the Orion contract instead of Boeing as Boeing's vehicle was more along the lines of what Orion became.

Though in some ways the LM cev is more like a capsule in that it does make use of a separate mission module.

In this way Dragon acts more like a space plane as most of it's major systems stay with the reentry vehicle.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/05/2010 06:22 am
Thought this was about COTS 1 not about lifting bodies. Anyone have any specifics yet on when launch window is scheduled for Tuesday?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Patchouli on 12/05/2010 06:51 am
Thought this was about COTS 1 not about lifting bodies. Anyone have any specifics yet on when launch window is scheduled for Tuesday?
9:03 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. EST
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-168_SpaceX_Launch.html
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tigerade on 12/05/2010 08:18 am
Thought this was about COTS 1 not about lifting bodies. Anyone have any specifics yet on when launch window is scheduled for Tuesday?
9:03 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. EST
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-168_SpaceX_Launch.html

I usually sleep in much later than that.  Looks like I'll be setting my alarm on Tuesday.  :) 

I don't care if it ends up being delayed.  I can't miss this launch!
Title: Re: LIVE: Space Falcon 9 Flight 2 Static Fire - December 4, 2010
Post by: MP99 on 12/05/2010 10:55 am
Post moved over from the Flight 2 Static Fire Live thread (with extra quoting), as off-topic over there:-

Oops - deleted by mistake.

Can someone send me a copy from their subscribed mail??? Thanks!

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 12/05/2010 10:55 am
Thought this was about COTS 1 not about lifting bodies. Anyone have any specifics yet on when launch window is scheduled for Tuesday?
9:03 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. EST
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-168_SpaceX_Launch.html

Re above post:-

Quote
This is the first of three test launches currently planned in the Falcon 9 test flight series. It is intended as a demonstration mission to prove key capabilities such as launch, structural integrity of the Dragon spacecraft, on-orbit operation, re-entry, descent and splashdown in the Pacific Ocean.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: arnezami on 12/05/2010 11:01 am
I believe SpaceX have a COTS-C contract, right? Or do they have a combined COTS-B + COTS-C contract?

If the return trip fails (but does no harm to anyone) I guess it's a good demo from a COTS-B perspective:

Quote
Capability B: Internal cargo delivery and disposal. Capability B delivers cargo (payloads) that operate within a volume maintained at normal atmospheric pressure to a LEO test bed and safely disposes cargo.


But probably not from a COTS-C perspective:
Quote
Capability C: Internal cargo delivery and return. Capability C delivers cargo (payloads) that operate within a volume maintained at normal atmospheric pressure to a LEO test bed and safely returns cargo.

link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/cots.htm)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/05/2010 11:39 am
I believe SpaceX have a COTS-C contract, right? Or do they have a combined COTS-B + COTS-C contract?

100% correct. They have COTS-A-C, which means that they don't have to successfully reenter on this try, indeed, they won't be required until they do Demo-3 (COTS-C).

However, it goes without saying that of course they will want to successfully reenter on all three tries.

edit: plus SpaceX could always do with a free Dragon module. The more the merrier (if they can successfully return all of their Dragon modules they will have 15 Dragon modules paid for by the taxpayer; NASA does not want reused Dragon modules).
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/05/2010 12:40 pm
Just so the new people are aware about how we do these events, we'll be starting a new thread for Tuesday's launch attempt, in the same way as we did with the static fire.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/05/2010 02:40 pm
Thanks for the heads up Chris, I was going to ask that but didn't want to ask a help desk type question and just was going to wait and see.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/05/2010 02:42 pm
I guess, but that is not what Antares was talking about.  He suggested that failing to recover Dragon would affect payments for delivering cargo.  Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Y'all are kidding, right?  You think NASA is going to happily continue on the schedule of the next two Demos and then the operational missions if there's a major anomaly on this one?  Dragon is the only downmass available after STS ends.  (shakes head)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Plasursci on 12/05/2010 04:23 pm
Y'all are kidding, right?  You think NASA is going to happily continue on the schedule of the next two Demos and then the operational missions if there's a major anomaly on this one?  Dragon is the only downmass available after STS ends.  (shakes head)

Only a single major anomaly? Yes, I think it's quite possible that NASA would happily continue with the next two demonstrations, as long as the anomaly is not too far out of scope of the sorts of issues that commonly occur in new spacecraft buses.

If the Falcon reaches orbit and the tests verify that Dragon's in-space capabilities meet the requirements for one-way resupply missions with few hiccups, I will personally be impressed and happy, even if it fails to return. I suspect the COTS office would be reasonably happy with such a result, too. (I'd obviously still expect jeers from those without an understanding of engineering or of aerospace flight testing, and I'd expect expressions of Schadenfreude from some with conflicting interests, but I don't think they'll have many more opportunities for much Freude.)

Now, if a postmortem indicates a constellation of major anomalies—an Apollo 1– or Soyuz 1–scale exposition of sloppy engineering—I will be concerned. The magnitude of the spectacle of the failure won't indicate that, however. It could tumble wildly out of control in orbit or careen to a Genesis-style splashdown and still be an otherwise well-designed spacecraft.

NASA understands that flight testing can (and probably will) expose problems that need to be corrected. If we thought we could completely verify the requirements on the ground, we wouldn't even bother with the demonstration flights—we'd proceed directly to cargo resupply.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Hauerg on 12/05/2010 04:43 pm
I guess, but that is not what Antares was talking about.  He suggested that failing to recover Dragon would affect payments for delivering cargo.  Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Y'all are kidding, right?  You think NASA is going to happily continue on the schedule of the next two Demos and then the operational missions if there's a major anomaly on this one?  Dragon is the only downmass available after STS ends.  (shakes head)

You answer your own question: STS will be gone and NASA does not have a lot of options. And before COTS there was no option (to Soyuz) at all.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Avron on 12/05/2010 05:05 pm
I guess, but that is not what Antares was talking about.  He suggested that failing to recover Dragon would affect payments for delivering cargo.  Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Y'all are kidding, right?  You think NASA is going to happily continue on the schedule of the next two Demos and then the operational missions if there's a major anomaly on this one?  Dragon is the only downmass available after STS ends.  (shakes head)

You answer your own question: STS will be gone and NASA does not have a lot of options. And before COTS there was no option (to Soyuz) at all.

I also don't see any other option that to continue, even on a Major malfunction.. the stats, say that there must be one.. if you try the risk is there.. if you are in this business or any other that takes on risks this level, then I cannot see why one would not continue to support the efforts.. its make in the USA and I can see that been the prime driver shortly..

Now ATK will need to be covered as well.. but that's another discussion...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 12/05/2010 05:09 pm
Y'all are kidding, right?  You think NASA is going to happily continue on the schedule of the next two Demos and then the operational missions if there's a major anomaly on this one?  Dragon is the only downmass available after STS ends.  (shakes head)

I thought there was a basic sliding scale off success and outcomes possible for spacex on this launch.

Perfect Launch/Perfect inorbit performance/Perfect recovery: Very likely COTS2/3 combination
Perfect Launch/perfect inorbit perfornace/non recovery: possbile COTS2/3 combination
Pefect Launch/non perfect inorbit performance (but completes goals of COTS1): Cots 2 & 3 stay seperate fligths
Offnominal launch or falure to complete COTS1 goals, repeat of COTS1

Am I way off here?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Rhyshaelkan on 12/05/2010 07:40 pm
Thought this was about COTS 1 not about lifting bodies. Anyone have any specifics yet on when launch window is scheduled for Tuesday?
9:03 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. EST
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-168_SpaceX_Launch.html

I usually sleep in much later than that.  Looks like I'll be setting my alarm on Tuesday.  :) 

I don't care if it ends up being delayed.  I can't miss this launch!

Yupper I work third shift. But I wanted to know the window so that I did not miss the launch. Due to living through Challenger and Columbia, there is always a rush of anxiety and hope that accompanies a launch. Watching it recorded loses that feeling ;)

Go SpaceX!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tigerade on 12/05/2010 08:31 pm
Yupper I work third shift. But I wanted to know the window so that I did not miss the launch. Due to living through Challenger and Columbia, there is always a rush of anxiety and hope that accompanies a launch. Watching it recorded loses that feeling ;)

Go SpaceX!

Yeah I work 2nd shift here.  I usually get up bright and early at 2pm each day.   :P

However, I will be getting up much earlier on Tuesday!  It will be awesome to see the Falcon 9 fly again, however it will be even better if we get footage of Dragon's re-entry later on.  Does anyone know if the Dragon is equipped with a camera like in the drop test?  If so, it would be awesome to see it return to Earth.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/05/2010 10:35 pm
Y'all are kidding, right?  You think NASA is going to happily continue on the schedule of the next two Demos and then the operational missions if there's a major anomaly on this one?  Dragon is the only downmass available after STS ends.  (shakes head)

Only a single major anomaly? Yes, I think it's quite possible that NASA would happily continue with the next two demonstrations, as long as the anomaly is not too far out of scope of the sorts of issues that commonly occur in new spacecraft buses.

If the Falcon reaches orbit and the tests verify that Dragon's in-space capabilities meet the requirements for one-way resupply missions with few hiccups, I will personally be impressed and happy, even if it fails to return. I suspect the COTS office would be reasonably happy with such a result, too. (I'd obviously still expect jeers from those without an understanding of engineering or of aerospace flight testing, and I'd expect expressions of Schadenfreude from some with conflicting interests, but I don't think they'll have many more opportunities for much Freude.)

Now, if a postmortem indicates a constellation of major anomalies—an Apollo 1– or Soyuz 1–scale exposition of sloppy engineering—I will be concerned. The magnitude of the spectacle of the failure won't indicate that, however. It could tumble wildly out of control in orbit or careen to a Genesis-style splashdown and still be an otherwise well-designed spacecraft.

NASA understands that flight testing can (and probably will) expose problems that need to be corrected. If we thought we could completely verify the requirements on the ground, we wouldn't even bother with the demonstration flights—we'd proceed directly to cargo resupply.

You don't know where Antares works or has worked.  You don't understand NASA
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 12/06/2010 12:14 am
 I guess it will depend on what the anomoly is as to how critical it will be to future demo flights and NASA's response.
I'll go with an pretty much perfect flight but I know that the stat's are not on SpaceX's side.  However just 'cause they aren't, doesn't mean that SpaceX will fail.  They beat the stat's last time around, even with a couple of issues, so they could do it again.
All the best SpaceX.
BTW, launch window starts at 3.03am Wednesday morning where I am.  Early to bed for me,  :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: TOG on 12/06/2010 02:24 pm

It will be awesome to see the Falcon 9 fly again, however it will be even better if we get footage of Dragon's re-entry later on.  Does anyone know if the Dragon is equipped with a camera like in the drop test?  If so, it would be awesome to see it return to Earth.

Very much looking forward to seeing AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN!!!  But I was wondering - will SpaceX be putting up any live cargo?  Perhaps some mice and bugs?  If not, how will they test the internal pressure integrity of the Dragon?

Oh, and Santa, I want LOTS AND LOTS of PICTURES!  And a Successful Falcon 9 launch!  And Live coverage of the Successful Splashdown of the Dragon Capsule!  Please?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/06/2010 02:36 pm

Very much looking forward to seeing AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN!!!  But I was wondering - will SpaceX be putting up any live cargo?  Perhaps some mice and bugs?  If not, how will they test the internal pressure integrity of the Dragon?


And risk the wrath of the PETA crowd for obtaining data that can be (and probably will be) recorded with a simple data logger?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kkattula on 12/06/2010 02:41 pm
IIRC, It doesn't matter whether Demo 1 succeeds or fails.  They move on to COTS Demo 2. The only difference might be in convincing NASA to combine 2 & 3. But I don't see why they would. The last milestone payment is incredibly cheap for the confidence of an extra test flight before CRS starts.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 02:43 pm
IIRC, It doesn't matter whether Demo 1 succeeds or fails.

It doesn't matter for COTS, but it matters for ISS ultimately. Any significant anomaly and we're bound to lose a year or so of failure root cause analysis, etc. That pushes everything to the right even more.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: go4mars on 12/06/2010 02:45 pm

Very much looking forward to seeing AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN!!!  But I was wondering - will SpaceX be putting up any live cargo?  Perhaps some mice and bugs?  If not, how will they test the internal pressure integrity of the Dragon?


And risk the wrath of the PETA crowd for obtaining data that can be (and probably will be) recorded with a simple data logger?

That's win-win.  If it goes right, it's more exciting.  If it goes wrong, some cute vegetarians do a nude protest just outside your office window with "Go Vegan" painted on their hindquarters for the cameras.  Not all bad...  btw, they can have the mice in my garage.  I'm planning to kill those anyways.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/06/2010 03:10 pm
SFN reporting only 40% chance of launch Tuesday due to wind. Anyone know what exactly is the wind speed threshold for F9 launch?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 03:23 pm
There will be a 45th Wing weather officer at the L-1 press conference today so we may find that out.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Avron on 12/06/2010 03:34 pm
There will be a 45th Wing weather officer at the L-1 press conference today so we may find that out.

What time is that L-1 press conf?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Avron on 12/06/2010 03:36 pm
There will be a 45th Wing weather officer at the L-1 press conference today so we may find that out.

What time is that L-1 press conf?

"PRELAUNCH NEWS CONFERENCE
The prelaunch news conference for the COTS 1 Falcon 9 launch is planned for L-1, currently Monday, Dec. 6 at 1:30 p.m., at the press site at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. NASA Television will provide live coverage, and the briefing will be streamed at "
ref: www.nasa.gov
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/06/2010 03:42 pm

Very much looking forward to seeing AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN!!!  But I was wondering - will SpaceX be putting up any live cargo?  Perhaps some mice and bugs?  If not, how will they test the internal pressure integrity of the Dragon?


And risk the wrath of the PETA crowd for obtaining data that can be (and probably will be) recorded with a simple data logger?

That's win-win.  If it goes right, it's more exciting.  If it goes wrong, some cute vegetarians do a nude protest just outside your office window with "Go Vegan" painted on their hindquarters for the cameras.  Not all bad...  btw, they can have the mice in my garage.  I'm planning to kill those anyways.

And if the cute little rabbit you sent up got out of it's cage and chewed through the wiring in the dragon causing an untraceable failure that leads to it becoming rabbit stew for what should rightly be calamari? What does that do for the ISS? It adds unnecessary complication to obtain info on events they will already have in the telemetry.

Besides, does SpaceX meet all the standards you need to meet for animal testing? If you want a crash test dummy, send Elon up ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kking on 12/06/2010 04:45 pm
I got a question. Unless I've missed it somewhere. Is there a press kit or something that has mission profile, duration, how much coverage. Reason I asked. NASA has said they will have a press confernce 1 hour after splashdown. Nothing on NASA or Spacex sites

Thanks Kyle King
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Space Pete on 12/06/2010 05:18 pm
Quote from: Robert Pearlman via Twitter
SpaceX lowered its Falcon 9 rocket this morning for reasons still unknown. Today's media photo opp with the rocket is reportedly canceled.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Gravity Ray on 12/06/2010 05:24 pm
Don’t have an official press kit, but the mission profile from what I read goes something like this:

Testing the fixes to the Falcon 9 rocket (for example the unplanned roll of the Falcon rocket during flight1) and get a cleaner launch.

For the Dragon I think they will get it separated and communicating. Then do some orbital maneuvering and then some reentry tests of the capsule. Then see about landing the capsule in one largish piece. Its not going to be complicated, they only have a few hours.


Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/06/2010 05:26 pm
Quote from: Robert Pearlman via Twitter
SpaceX lowered its Falcon 9 rocket this morning for reasons still unknown. Today's media photo opp with the rocket is reportedly canceled.

It is vertical at this time
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 12/06/2010 05:37 pm
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 12/06/2010 05:37 pm
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 12/06/2010 05:40 pm
thursday is earliest launch date now...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 12/06/2010 05:40 pm
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jongoff on 12/06/2010 05:40 pm
I didn't catch what she was saying about the 2nd stage nozzle?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 12/06/2010 05:41 pm
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 12/06/2010 05:42 pm
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 05:42 pm
I didn't catch what she was saying about the 2nd stage nozzle?

Something about detecting something in the clouseout photos. Want to investigate, if no new nozzle is needed launch is NET Thursday. If a new nozzle is needed I heard a NET Friday or Saturday.

If they did lower the vehicle to check this out, I don't understand why they'd erect it back up as Jim observed if there needs to be work done. For the post-conference photo-op only?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 12/06/2010 05:45 pm
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 12/06/2010 05:48 pm
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 12/06/2010 05:48 pm
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 05:59 pm
They see some porosity, perhaps some cracking, on a weld joint during final close-out.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 06:00 pm
They see some porosity, perhaps some cracking, on a weld joint during final close-out.

...and the vehicle is now vertical because they're doing some TVC wiggle tests.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/06/2010 06:00 pm
She said welding issues with the nozzle....if not Thursday then Friday or Saturday.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 06:01 pm
That's really really something you would have expected QC to catch, imho.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: baldusi on 12/06/2010 06:01 pm
Besides, does SpaceX meet all the standards you need to meet for animal testing? If you want a crash test dummy, send Elon up ;)
I was thinking. If they want to make a human rated emergency capsule, couldn't they send up a test dummy with a normal supply capsule when supplying the ISS? If I'm not mistaken, a capsule human rated for down mass would be quite simpler than having it go up human rated. And it could be an interesting middle development.
Of course, if the price is right, a true test of the LAS inflight would be cooler. Like activating the self destruct, and letting the LAS detect the catastrophic failure and having a couple of test dummies in the capsule survive that. Can you imagine that?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/06/2010 06:01 pm
anyone know what a "wiggle" test means?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 06:02 pm
anyone know what a "wiggle" test means?

Testing the whole vector space of the control rods on the nozzle. Basically what STS does every time it flies. :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/06/2010 06:03 pm
anyone know what a "wiggle" test means?

TVC test
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/06/2010 06:05 pm
anyone know what a "wiggle" test means?

TVC test

Thanks Jim.   Glad to hear that she said "SpaceX is very open, transparent and public about their missions.  We don't have a muzzle on our data."   Cool - I hope to see that going forward.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Avron on 12/06/2010 06:08 pm
Bill... How much insight does nasa have on any other launch vendor..

???

Come on now.. you have no future vision...  show me some vision or sit back and support Made in USA...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/06/2010 06:12 pm
Bill... How much insight does nasa have on any other launch vendor..

???

Come on now.. you have no future vision...  show me some vision or sit back and support Made in USA...

I don't understand this.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/06/2010 06:15 pm
I was thinking. If they want to make a human rated emergency capsule, couldn't they send up a test dummy with a normal supply capsule when supplying the ISS? If I'm not mistaken, a capsule human rated for down mass would be quite simpler than having it go up human rated. And it could be an interesting middle development.

It boils down to thermal management, A capsule with a biological in it requires more robust thermal management than cargo.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 06:15 pm
Thanks Jim.   Glad to hear that she said "SpaceX is very open, transparent and public about their missions.  We don't have a muzzle on our data."   Cool - I hope to see that going forward.

Only difference is that you have to be on their FaceBook page if you want to find stuff out, rather than being an insider.  :D
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/06/2010 06:15 pm
Is it common to get an inclination waiver from the FAA to fly over Europe on a test flight per an earlier discussion during the press conference?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/06/2010 06:18 pm
That's really really something you would have expected QC to catch, imho.

By the same token, it was missed on Delta III flight two, and the RL-10 has more flight history than all of SpaceX.

I look at it as a positive, QC found something and they are taking the time to go back to it.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 06:20 pm
They're going to fly thousands of patches in the Dragon capsule for this flight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 06:22 pm
kevin-rf, very true, they caught it during QC. Felt silly after writing that, but you of course know I meant in the manufacture stage. I just can't think of what could cause that issue during shipping or during the test fires, glad they caught it, and it does indicate that their QC is good so far.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: dsmillman on 12/06/2010 06:29 pm
It was mentioned during the briefing that there is a press kit available for this flight.  Does anyone have a URL for the press kit?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: stockman on 12/06/2010 06:30 pm
press breifing now over
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 06:31 pm
SpaceX thanks NASA at the end.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 06:31 pm
I'll second that. It looks like the press kit has the patch for this mission printed on the front page.

Edit: here's the patch: http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum18/HTML/000601.html#spacex_f9cots1patch01

Obligatory four-leaf clover included, we'll see if it pays off.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 12/06/2010 06:33 pm
There was a lot of tough questions from the reporters. Some good questions but not too many soft balls.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 06:34 pm
There was a lot of tough questions from the reporters. Some good questions but not too many soft balls.
I don't understand that. I mean, why does SpaceX get treated that way when NASA doesn't?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/06/2010 06:36 pm
There was a lot of tough questions from the reporters. Some good questions but not too many soft balls.
I don't understand that. I mean, why does SpaceX get treated that way when NASA doesn't?

Can you give an example of the type of question asked here that you don't hear asked at a shuttle presser?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 06:37 pm
Edit: here's the patch: http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum18/HTML/000601.html#spacex_f9cots1patch01

Obligatory four-leaf clover included, we'll see if it pays off.

Would the 3 stars signify the 3 piggybacked payloads?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/06/2010 06:40 pm
Nice looking patch.   Does anyone know the derivation of the Dragon symbol and logo?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/06/2010 06:42 pm
Nice looking patch.   Does anyone know the derivation of the Dragon symbol and logo?

Um . . . what? It's a dragon.  ???
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 06:42 pm
Edit: here's the patch: http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum18/HTML/000601.html#spacex_f9cots1patch01

Obligatory four-leaf clover included, we'll see if it pays off.

Would the 3 stars signify the 3 piggybacked payloads?
Here's the previous Press Kit (for inaugural Falcon 9 flight):
http://www.nbbd.com/events/spacex/100604-Falcon9PressKit.pdf
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kking on 12/06/2010 06:44 pm
Jay Barbree had tough questions. Somebody mentioned the press kit. Is it online anywhere. I just checked NASA and Spacex homepage neither had it listed.

Kyle
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 12/06/2010 06:44 pm
There was a lot of tough questions from the reporters. Some good questions but not too many soft balls.
I don't understand that. I mean, why does SpaceX get treated that way when NASA doesn't?

Can you give an example of the type of question asked here that you don't hear asked at a shuttle presser?

A lot of questions were about the costs of the COTS program. You don't hear those kind of questions for Shuttle. But I think that the questions about costs are fair given the fact that commmercial companies are said to be cheaper. The criticism about SpaceX not being open enough with reporters was also fair. Gwynne Shotwell, President of SpaceX, said that they will try to improve on that.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 06:47 pm
Jay Barbree had tough questions.

It's no secret he isn't exactly the greatest supporter of "commercial space". Since this wasn't about crewed launches, he did tone it down from his usual.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 12/06/2010 06:50 pm
A lot of questions were about the costs of the COTS program? You don't hear those kind of questions for Shuttle. But I think that the questions about costs are fair given the fact that commmercial companies are said to be cheaper. The criticism about SpaceX not being open enough with reporters were also fair. Gwynne Shotwell, President of SpaceX, admitted that they will try to improve on that.
My Emphasis... Because we all know just how open, honest, and forthcoming the NASA PAO is, right?

Communication, whether in a business, a relationship, or marriage is the number one cause of failure.  We all want to communicate better.  I am sure SpaceX will.  That being said, NASA is not very good at all.  That other website does a great job of providing a historical record on the level of fail of the PAO at NASA.

This is not directed at you yg but me thinking out loud.  If it comes off looking like that, I am sorry.

VR
RE327
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/06/2010 06:50 pm
A lot of questions were about the costs of the COTS program. You don't hear those kind of questions for Shuttle.

You may not but I do... Every time we have a delay somebody asks about the cost. Then the answerer says "it costs the same no matter what." Not a lot to talk about otherwise, I'm not sure that qualifies as a "tough question"?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 06:51 pm
I uploaded the full conference here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=R0XO807T

Don't feel like doing an edit and uploading to YouTube.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: John44 on 12/06/2010 06:52 pm
NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services 1, Falcon 9 L-1 Pre-launch News Briefing
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6323
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 12/06/2010 06:57 pm
A lot of questions were about the costs of the COTS program. You don't hear those kind of questions for Shuttle.

You may not but I do... Every time we have a delay somebody asks about the cost. Then the answerer says "it costs the same no matter what." Not a lot to talk about otherwise, I'm not sure that qualifies as a "tough question"?

Maybe not that one. But the question about what would happen if Dragon failed and fell back on earth was a tough question. Jay Barbaree's question about flying over Europe was another tough question.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 12/06/2010 07:12 pm
A lot of questions were about the costs of the COTS program? You don't hear those kind of questions for Shuttle. But I think that the questions about costs are fair given the fact that commmercial companies are said to be cheaper. The criticism about SpaceX not being open enough with reporters were also fair. Gwynne Shotwell, President of SpaceX, admitted that they will try to improve on that.
My Emphasis... Because we all know just how open, honest, and forthcoming the NASA PAO is, right?

Communication, whether in a business, a relationship, or marriage is the number one cause of failure.  We all want to communicate better.  I am sure SpaceX will.  That being said, NASA is not very good at all.  That other website does a great job of providing a historical record on the level of fail of the PAO at NASA.

This is not directed at you yg but me thinking out loud.  If it comes off looking like that, I am sorry.

VR
RE327

I agree with you and that's why there is a need for a forum like this one!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 07:30 pm
Communication, whether in a business, a relationship, or marriage is the number one cause of failure.  We all want to communicate better.  I am sure SpaceX will.  That being said, NASA is not very good at all.  That other website does a great job of providing a historical record on the level of fail of the PAO at NASA.

One thing that journalists are going to have to adapt to is that SpaceX appears to be taking a social networking approach with regards to getting info out. With the static test fire they updated FaceBook and Twitter within a few minutes of the information being available. Heck, I was posting the updates in the static fire thread before any of the major news outlets had any idea what was going on. In that respect SpaceX was being more open than NASA PAO would ever be. I do hope it continues this way in the future. We'll see. It would've been cool to have heard about the delay (due to second stage nozzle anomalies) before it hit the conference, but I think they decided to keep it under wraps until the conference.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/06/2010 07:31 pm
I just can't think of what could cause that issue [with the niobium nozzle extension] during shipping or during the test fires

But it isn't "test fired" at all, which may be part of the reason for inspecting it again.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Retired Downrange on 12/06/2010 07:39 pm
A lot of questions were about the costs of the COTS program. You don't hear those kind of questions for Shuttle.
a tough question. Jay Barbaree's question about flying over Europe was another tough question.

=============================================
Is it possible that someone here with orbital calculation resources could lay this question of "flying over Europe" to rest?

My first assumption is that the FAA would not issue "paperwork" without considering this possibility.

As I understand rocket trajectories, after launch there is a period where the rocket would have a calculable ballistic trajectory, then a point where (some sort of) orbit will be attained. If all thrust stops at any time prior to orbital speed, the the possible range of impact points can be calculated. ...or if some failures are occurring, one can affect the ballistic trajectory via destruction, not separating, or not firing stage two etc.

...I realize that I am already beyond my level of knowledge of (or perhaps ability to express) the possible scenarios, but my opinion is that Europe is a sufficient distance away that either the capsule or stages will impact in ocean or be in orbit.

Could someone with more knowledge than I take up this question, if it is possible to answer in "layman's" terminology?

Thank You.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/06/2010 07:46 pm
My Emphasis... Because we all know just how open, honest, and forthcoming the NASA PAO is, right?

NASA PAO just tweeted that SpaceX may move the launch up to Wednesday, so they have a chance to make up for previous errors :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 07:47 pm
But it isn't "test fired" at all, which may be part of the reason for inspecting it again.

Yeah, I know. From my POV I can't think of any reason the anomaly shouldn't have been picked up at post-manufacture QC. Could it have been shipping? Could it have been vibration from the static test fire of the first stage? I'm not knowledgeable about it enough to make a good educated guess.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/06/2010 07:47 pm
Maybe not that one. But the question about what would happen if Dragon failed and fell back on earth was a tough question. Jay Barbaree's question about flying over Europe was another tough question.

Every time a shuttle landing takes them over land instead of water, those questions are asked too. I guess I'm not getting the point?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 07:52 pm
I just can't think of what could cause that issue [with the niobium nozzle extension] during shipping or during the test fires

But it isn't "test fired" at all, which may be part of the reason for inspecting it again.

For those of you who aren't clear on this, the big niobium nozzle extension is only attached to the main engine nozzle during vehicle integration, most likely at the Cape hangar. There's no way to test fire the engine at sea level with that thing on (unless you pay for a high altitude chamber). The flow separation because of overexpansion at sea level would very likely destroy the nozzle extension. Instead, just the "basic" engine is fired, which includes some section of the nozzle that's regeneratively cooled like in the normal Merlin 1c. Beyond that, the niobium extension comes in.

The fact the nozzle extension could not be tested on the ground was actually one of the higher risks on the maiden flight of F9.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/06/2010 07:53 pm
But it isn't "test fired" at all, which may be part of the reason for inspecting it again.

Yeah, I know. From my POV I can't think of any reason the anomaly shouldn't have been picked up at post-manufacture QC. Could it have been shipping? Could it have been vibration from the static test fire of the first stage? I'm not knowledgeable about it enough to make a good educated guess.

From what I've read, just welding the stuff and forming it into the proper shape is a pain in the ol'incorrect.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 07:55 pm
From my POV I can't think of any reason the anomaly shouldn't have been picked up at post-manufacture QC. Could it have been shipping?

Who said it had to be the nozzle itself and not the weld or whatever that holds it to the MVac and is only applied at the Cape?

Quote
Could it have been vibration from the static test fire of the first stage? I'm not knowledgeable about it enough to make a good educated guess.

The way I understood it, the problem was picked up in the photos taken during vehicle closeout, before any static fires or WDRs.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 07:55 pm
Sorry for not being clear guys, I am aware that second stage was not test fired.

edit: ugordan, thanks for clearing that up, so could shipping have been the issue? Or could it have cropped up just as some anomaly in the process as it sat for however long between when they made it and caught it during the inspection?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Malderi on 12/06/2010 07:59 pm
Is it true that actually replacing the nozzle extension could still mean a flight this weekend? As in, bringing the rocket back down to the hangar, separating the stages, installing the new nozzle extension, re-stacking and re-integrating everything... and it just adds a couple days to the schedule?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 07:59 pm
SFN reports from NASA twitter: "NASA says launch could occur as soon as Wednesday now, but they expect more details this afternoon."

http://twitter.com/NASA/status/11884309283606528
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/06/2010 08:01 pm
SFN reports from NASA twitter: "NASA says launch could occur as soon as Wednesday now, but they expect more details this afternoon."

That's not a SFN report -

My Emphasis... Because we all know just how open, honest, and forthcoming the NASA PAO is, right?

NASA PAO just tweeted that SpaceX may move the launch up to Wednesday, so they have a chance to make up for previous errors :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/06/2010 08:01 pm
That's really really something you would have expected QC to catch, imho.
By the same token, it was missed on Delta III flight two, and the RL-10 has more flight history than all of SpaceX.

I look at it as a positive, QC found something and they are taking the time to go back to it.

A little apples and oranges.  SpaceX does these things late in the flow.  IIRC, there was a very similar issue with the Kestrel nozzle a few years ago.  The RL10 issue was an erosion/misinterpretation of requirements.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 08:03 pm
A little apples and oranges.  SpaceX does these things late in the flow.

Quite. I can understand reviewing just the static fire data this late in the game, but the vehicle has been sitting integrated for what - months?

http://twitpic.com/3dk7i2
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: JohnWT on 12/06/2010 08:15 pm
Maybe not that one. But the question about what would happen if Dragon failed and fell back on earth was a tough question. Jay Barbaree's question about flying over Europe was another tough question.

Every time a shuttle landing takes them over land instead of water, those questions are asked too. I guess I'm not getting the point?

Would the shuttle come down in a stable, heat shield first configuration if it went out of control?  My understanding is that Dragon would, hence I was a bit surprised at Gwynne Shotwell's answer that she thought it would probably break up.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Gary NASA on 12/06/2010 08:18 pm
First lesson might be not to compare Dragon with the Orbiters. The Orbiters are massive seven+ crew carrying vehicles with a massive payload upmass and downmass.........not a capsule.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 08:23 pm
Maybe not that one. But the question about what would happen if Dragon failed and fell back on earth was a tough question. Jay Barbaree's question about flying over Europe was another tough question.

Every time a shuttle landing takes them over land instead of water, those questions are asked too. I guess I'm not getting the point?

Would the shuttle come down in a stable, heat shield first configuration if it went out of control?  My understanding is that Dragon would, hence I was a bit surprised at Gwynne Shotwell's answer that she thought it would probably break up.
Hopefully break up. Funny that passive stability may now be a drawback in this little corner case?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 08:26 pm
Funny that passive stability may now be a drawback in this little corner case?

I was thinking the same thing. What's safer for those inside isn't necessarily safer for those on the ground...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/06/2010 08:37 pm
A small bit of math tells me that the probability of an out-of-control Dragon that makes it to the ground intact hitting one of the people on this planet is about 1 in 4000.  And that's if everyone is outside unprotected by any shelter.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: hop on 12/06/2010 08:40 pm
Would the shuttle come down in a stable, heat shield first configuration if it went out of control?
Seems unlikely, but I'm not sure an SSME powerhead would put much less of a dent in your day than an intact Dragon...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: boaorm on 12/06/2010 08:45 pm
The list of arguments given by Spacex to FAA when asking for a waiver was (argument #1 kind of backs up Ms. Shotwells hope of an eventual break-up of the capsule n case of a non-controlled reentry:)

(as linked here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg666957#msg666957 )

1. Dragon's thermal protection system has been modified so that if it enters facing down it will burn and demise.

2. Dragon can keep orbiting in order to increase the probability of initiating a safe reentry.

3. Dragon will automatically vent its propellants if it is not able to reenter as planned. Venting occurs autonomously, but SpaceX has the ability to issue a back-up command from the ground.

4. In the case of a failed or degraded deorbit burn, Dragon automatically drains propellants and subsequently deploys its parachutes.

5. A ground command received through one of three receivers and through multiple RF links, via TDRSS and multiple ground stations, can command the venting of any remaining fuel and the draining of battery power to reduce the possibility of explosion or toxic fumes when Dragon lands.

6. Dragon has the ability to autonomously guide itself to a predetermined site located more than 780 km from the coastline.

7. Dragon has the ability to monitor its safety-critical systems in real-time.

8. Dragon has over 100% margin on both power and propellant budgets.

9. Dragon has a space-grade Inertial Measurement Unit and space-grade flight computer, both of which have extensive flight heritage including use on the International Space Station.

10. Dragon has redundant drogue parachutes and dual redundant main parachutes.

11. The vehicle's thrusters are plumbed such that Dragon can deorbit and reenter with the loss of any two entire propulsion modules.

12. The vehicle has backup capabilities within all of its major subsystems.


Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 09:11 pm
The list of arguments given by Spacex to FAA when asking for a waiver was (argument #1 kind of backs up Ms. Shotwells hope of an eventual break-up of the capsule n case of a non-controlled reentry:)

(as linked here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg666957#msg666957 )
...
Thank you very much!
Quote
6. Dragon has the ability to autonomously guide itself to a predetermined site located more than 780 km from the coastline.
...
That's an interesting one. So, under what circumstance would Dragon autonomously land in the ocean?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 09:15 pm
Press kit:
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tobi453 on 12/06/2010 09:18 pm
Oh, look at the Isp Values! Second stage engine only 336s!!!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Swatch on 12/06/2010 09:21 pm
A little apples and oranges.  SpaceX does these things late in the flow.

Quite. I can understand reviewing just the static fire data this late in the game, but the vehicle has been sitting integrated for what - months?

http://twitpic.com/3dk7i2

I would think it would be normal to give everything one last glance as you're closing everything up.  Also, they did static fire recently.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 09:33 pm
Oh, look at the Isp Values! Second stage engine only 336s!!!
That's compared to 342s for the predicted Isp. Not terribly different, IMHO... Overly-optimistic predicted performance for a rocket engine seems to be par for the course. You should never trust a quoted Isp at least until that engine has seen a mission or two.

In the case of Merlin Vacuum, it hadn't even been test-fired in a vacuum before Falcon 9 first launched.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 09:51 pm
SpaceX answering questions: http://www.facebook.com/SpaceX/posts/173436672676788

Nothing we haven't already seen in this thread, just thought it was noteworthy.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2010 09:56 pm
SpaceX answering questions: http://www.facebook.com/SpaceX/posts/173436672676788

Nothing we haven't already seen in this thread, just thought it was noteworthy.

Including one individual who's not overly interested in the launch, rather she wants to know if Eric will come back home from sea (presumably crewing one of the recovery vessels) for her birthday.

You gotta love Facebook. Or not.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Retired Downrange on 12/06/2010 10:01 pm
The Merlin vacuum expansion nozzle used on the second stage measures nine feet tall.

There is a photo of this nozzle on page ten of the press kit.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 10:18 pm
Including one individual who's not overly interested in the launch, rather she wants to know if Eric will come back home from sea (presumably crewing one of the recovery vessels) for her birthday.

You gotta love Facebook. Or not.

Eh, grad student, I'll give her a pass. I just have been observing that the FB updates are more frequent than the Twitter updates. Maybe because the person doing them is using it as an excuse to check FB, who cares. :)

If you're really wanting to keep up, keep the SpaceX FB page open and the SpaceXer Twitter feed open (plus SpaceXMissions), you'll see them update in real time. It's really fun stuff.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: 2552 on 12/06/2010 10:27 pm
http://twitter.com/#!/NASAKennedy (http://twitter.com/#!/NASAKennedy)
Quote
SpaceX now says the Falcon 9 rocket launch for NASA's COTS program is no earlier than Wednesday. Earlier it was estimated to be Thursday.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 10:32 pm
http://twitter.com/#!/NASAKennedy (http://twitter.com/#!/NASAKennedy)
Quote
SpaceX now says the Falcon 9 rocket launch for NASA's COTS program is no earlier than Wednesday. Earlier it was estimated to be Thursday.
On Facebook, SpaceX still says Thursday:
"Now targeting launch no earlier than this Thursday, Dec. 9. Taking some time to look at 2nd stage nozzle, will keep you posted on schedule as able--thanks for the support!"
http://www.facebook.com/SpaceX/posts/173436672676788
3 hours ago
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 10:38 pm
http://twitter.com/#!/NASAKennedy (http://twitter.com/#!/NASAKennedy)
Quote
SpaceX now says the Falcon 9 rocket launch for NASA's COTS program is no earlier than Wednesday. Earlier it was estimated to be Thursday.
On Facebook, SpaceX still says Thursday:
"Now targeting launch no earlier than this Thursday, Dec. 9. Taking some time to look at 2nd stage nozzle, will keep you posted on schedule as able--thanks for the support!"
http://www.facebook.com/SpaceX/posts/173436672676788
3 hours ago
More recently on Facebook (in response to that post http://www.facebook.com/SpaceX/posts/173436672676788 ):
Quote from: SpaceX
‎@Ben, thanks for the help ;) @Muttley, Ben is correct, we take closeout photos as part of our final review process and the engineers want to take a look at the 2nd stage nozzle. @Gregg, you are also correct, NASA has said as early as Wednesday, but we need more details before we can really make a call. @Lars, not sure how long that takes or if its necessary here, but we'll keep you updated on the schedule as we hear--thansk everyone!
about an hour ago ·

And also, it looks like they're inspecting the nozzle while the rocket is still raised:
http://twitpic.com/3dk7i2
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 10:43 pm
I think it's still too early to say whether or not they can get it flown on Wednesday, I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/06/2010 10:55 pm
I think it's still too early to say whether or not they can get it flown on Wednesday

Josh - how is the analysis going so far? Is there a particular area you think could be the cause of a NET Thursday versus Wednesday?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/06/2010 11:17 pm
Nice looking patch.   Does anyone know the derivation of the Dragon symbol and logo?

Um . . . what? It's a dragon.  ???

Right above the word SpaceX on their patch is a dragon which is their nomenclature and name for their spacecraft.   I was wondering if anyone knew the derivation of the dragon name, why they selected that name etc?  Just curious.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 12/06/2010 11:21 pm
Press kit:

Quote
The result is the most advanced heat shield ever to fly, it can potentially be used hundreds of times for Earth orbit reentry with only minor degradation each time (like an extreme version of a Formula 1 car's carbon brakepads) and can even withstand the much higher heat of a moon or Mars velocity reentry.

"potentially be used hundreds of times for Earth orbit reentry" - I had not realised that!

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/06/2010 11:23 pm
Right above the word SpaceX on their patch is a dragon which is their nomenclature and name for their spacecraft.   I was wondering if anyone knew the derivation of the dragon name, why they selected that name etc?  Just curious.

Really, I'm not kidding.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/06/2010 11:39 pm
Josh - how is the analysis going so far? Is there a particular area you think could be the cause of a NET Thursday versus Wednesday?

I have no particular justification for my belief, but I think Wednesday would be a best case scenario and I'd be genuinely surprised if it happens. NET Wednesday is official I guess, but that doesn't mean it'll launch Wednesday.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/06/2010 11:44 pm
Press kit:

Quote
The result is the most advanced heat shield ever to fly, it can potentially be used hundreds of times for Earth orbit reentry with only minor degradation each time (like an extreme version of a Formula 1 car's carbon brakepads) and can even withstand the much higher heat of a moon or Mars velocity reentry.

"potentially be used hundreds of times for Earth orbit reentry" - I had not realised that!

cheers, Martin
Yes, quite interesting!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/07/2010 12:00 am
I have no particular justification for my belief

Thanks for clarifying, I thought you had some insight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/07/2010 12:02 am
rdale, sorry about that, I should add in my sig that I am not an insider, just following SpaceX really closely. Shouldn't state gut feelings as if they're fact. Apologies.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 12/07/2010 12:28 am
If  NASA says potentially Wednesday, but SpaceX themselves say Thursday at the earliest - I think Wednesday is reeeeaaaly unlikely. :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 12:32 am
But it isn't "test fired" at all, which may be part of the reason for inspecting it again.

Yeah, I know. From my POV I can't think of any reason the anomaly shouldn't have been picked up at post-manufacture QC. Could it have been shipping? Could it have been vibration from the static test fire of the first stage? I'm not knowledgeable about it enough to make a good educated guess.

I'm not familiar with niobium nozzle extensions for liquid engines, but I do know that for solid upper stages like IUS and TOS that had large carbon-carbon one-piece nozzles, those things were extremely fragile, and damage during shipping, integration and stacking was always a concern. On the Mars Observer mission on Titan III, while stacked on the Titan, we did a final inspection of the TOS carbon-carbon nozzle just before closing out the Titan interstage, just to be sure that no damage had occurred during the final steps of vehicle integration. Apparently similar to what SpaceX did here. Point being, you can't be too careful with large, thin-walled, high expansion ratio nozzles, be they carbon-carbon or niobium, apparently. But it's not clear yet where/when the MVac nozzle defect occurred. "Porosity" in a weld suggests the manufacturing process, though.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/07/2010 12:33 am
SpaceXer twitter: A decision on whether or not to attempt launch on Wednesday is not expected until tomorrow.

edit, source: http://twitter.com/#!/SpaceXer/status/11955210863771648

Kabloona, thanks for that answer, btw.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/07/2010 12:36 am
But it's not clear yet where/when the MVac nozzle defect occurred. "Porosity" in a weld suggests the manufacturing process, though.

I would say 'clearly points to'.
The question becomes how it passed QA, as eluded to earlier in this thread. Depending on the QA procedures, one would 'think' that radiography of the welds would be in order, so this baffles me. Dye penetrant is another likely candidate, though I'm not sure if there would be any issues with contamination, but it's doubtful.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 12:40 am
But it's not clear yet where/when the MVac nozzle defect occurred. "Porosity" in a weld suggests the manufacturing process, though.

I would say 'clearly points to'.
The question becomes how it passed QA, as eluded to earlier in this thread. Depending on the QA procedures, one would 'think' that radiography of the welds would be in order, so this baffles me. Dye penetrant is another likely candidate, though I'm not sure if there would be any issues with contamination, but it's doubtful.

It is puzzling...it suggests that they're taking fairly close-up hi-res photos in the interstage closeout process, and it's hard to imagine doing a more thorough inpection inside a dark, cramped interstage than they did in a brightly lit high bay back in Hawthorne...

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/07/2010 12:42 am
Hmm. We've already had a summer of leaks, are we now in for a winter of cracks?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/07/2010 12:46 am
Yeah, if you follow the discussion backward I was one of the first to mention QC. I wanted to reach out for alternate explanations. I hope we get an official root cause explanation in the coming days. SpaceX so far has been fairly open with that sort of thing (F1 failures, F9 spin start issue, and now this).
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 12:52 am
Right above the word SpaceX on their patch is a dragon which is their nomenclature and name for their spacecraft.   I was wondering if anyone knew the derivation of the dragon name, why they selected that name etc?  Just curious.

Really, I'm not kidding.

OK well if true here is what Wikipedia says about the song Puff the Magic Dragon: 

"The authors of the song have repeatedly rejected this urban legend and have strongly and consistently denied that they intended any references to drug use.[8] Peter Yarrow has frequently explained that "Puff" is about the hardships of growing older and has no relationship to drug-taking.[9] He has also said of the song that it "never had any meaning other than the obvious one" and is about the "loss of innocence".[10]"

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2010 01:07 am
Why is everyone dancing around it.  A process broke down.  Similar to something on the first F1 flight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/07/2010 01:07 am
The other sites are only reporting what the media releases are saying. There's no inside track going on via twitter and other sites. As Jim says, way too much dancing around on this thread, and it's becoming noisey.

UPDATE: COTS 1

SpaceX engineers are analyzing the two small cracks in the aft end of the 2nd stage engine nozzle expansion.  A decision on whether or not to attempt launch on Wednesday is not expected until tomorrow.  The Merlin Vacuum engine expansion nozzle is made of a niobium alloy, measures 2.7 meters (9 feet) tall, and most of it has a wall thickness of about 1/3 of a millimeter.  The niobium nozzle increases the efficiency of the Merlin engine in vacuum, but is not necessary to ensure success on this mission.  (first stage engines do not have the extension)

UPDATE 2: COTS 1, more detail

 

SpaceX engineers are analyzing two small cracks in the aft end of the 2nd stage engine nozzle extension.  These cracks are in a region near the end of the nozzle extension where there is very little stress and so they would not cause a flight failure by themselves.  However, further investigation is warranted to ensure that these cracks are not symptomatic of a more serious problem. 

 

A decision on whether or not to attempt launch on Wednesday will be provided tomorrow evening. 

 

The bell shaped Merlin Vacuum nozzle extension is made of niobium sheet alloy, measures 9 feet tall and 8 feet at the base diameter, and thins out to about twice the thickness of a soda can at the end.  Although made of an exotic refractory alloy metal with a melting temperature high enough to boil steel, this component is geometrically the simplest part of the engine.

 

It is important to note that the niobium nozzle extension increases the efficiency of the Merlin engine in vacuum and is installed by default on all upper stage Merlin engines, but that efficiency increase is not required for this mission.  The nozzle extension is most helpful when launching very heavy satellites or to maximize throw mass to distant destinations like Mars.  The most likely path forward is that we will trim off the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, which is where the cracks are located, perform a thorough systems check and resume launch preparation.

Both from SpaceX.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/07/2010 01:21 am
Thanks for the release Chris, first I've seen this anywhere. To be fair though we were discussing anomaly causes and QC, I was merely posting updates from SpaceX when I saw them, being clear that it was nothing new.

It'd be nice if the media would release these sort of releases as soon as they get them from SpaceX...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/07/2010 01:26 am
Anyone wishing to have a good read on Niobium's history & use in rocket nozzles:

http://www.cbmm.com.br/portug/sources/techlib/science_techno/table_content/sub_3/images/pdfs/016.pdf
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/07/2010 01:31 am
The most likely path forward is that we will trim off the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, which is where the cracks are located, perform a thorough systems check and resume launch preparation.

Both from SpaceX.

Aha...the old 5-axis hand mill solution.

(Also known as an intern with a Dremel)

So, if I understand the thinking right, trimming off the affected portions eliminates stress concentrations that can aid the cracks in propogating further up the nozzle.

I would assume an imperfect trim could result in some moment across the nozzle, but that should be effectively negligible given the low pressures at this portion of the nozzle.

Aside from the small performance hit, any other concerns people see?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/07/2010 01:38 am
The most likely path forward is that we will trim off the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, which is where the cracks are located, perform a thorough systems check and resume launch preparation.

Both from SpaceX.

Aha...the old 5-axis hand mill solution.

(Also known as an intern with a Dremel)
(laughed so hard at that one...)

Quote
So, if I understand the thinking right, trimming off the affected portions eliminates stress concentrations that can aid the cracks in propogating further up the nozzle.

I would assume an imperfect trim could result in some moment across the nozzle, but that should be effectively negligible given the low pressures at this portion of the nozzle.

Aside from the small performance hit, any other concerns people see?
considering the size of the nozzle from the press kit, the performance hit wouldn't even be detectable. More of a cosmetic change than anything else.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/07/2010 01:38 am
Thanks for the release Chris, first I've seen this anywhere. To be fair though we were discussing anomaly causes and QC, I was merely posting updates from SpaceX when I saw them, being clear that it was nothing new.

It'd be nice if the media would release these sort of releases as soon as they get them from SpaceX...

Yeah, sorry - that was my fault. I would normally post them as soon as I get them (into this sort of thread, as opposed to writing it up into an article, to speed things up). Was out at the time and came back to a frenzy ;D
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 01:42 am
Why is everyone dancing around it.  A process broke down.  Similar to something on the first F1 flight.

Agreed Jim - fair amount of dancing going on here in several areas:   Political favoritism, low transparency on the part of SpaceX, pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle, FAA waiver for Europe flyover, increased funding - during hard times in Washington - and I am sure there are other areas which you point out related to processing which you obviously have a lot of experience in.  This list is just a guess based on comments I've read here on L-2 so I could be wrong but I do see a lot of dancing going on.

Obviously SpaceX is getting a special deal out of WDC for now which is OK as we need them for ISS and I wish them the very best.  Poor planning on the part of congress over the years has caused a gap that has placed SpaceX in a challenging position to bail out part of the gap. 

Also I admire a man who puts up his own real cash to attempt to build a viable space program and he and his team has made very good progress in a short amount of time. 

So the reality is there is a lot of dancing going on and if I were in their shoes with the pressure WDC has placed on them maybe we all would be doing similar things.  All one has to do is watch the SpaceX team in their press conferences to realize how much pressure they are under. 

Whether folks like it or not the US needs SpaceX for now and thus the reason NASA was managing our expectations today by saying this is test program and they expect problems and they will continue to support SpaceX no matter what happens to the next two test flights. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 12/07/2010 01:42 am
anyone check the hd vid from the link (https://send.spacex.com/bds/Login.do?id=A043517252&p1=naj20dpsbfegcidgdlgffcj20) given on the press kit?  really see the green flash from the engine start up..great sound too ;)
hope the "rip" in the nozzle isn't a deal breaker for a launch before saturday..
cheers
jb.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/07/2010 01:47 am
Chris, I'll try to not post redundant stuff from now on (like Twitter updates, unless I'm sure they're new info, etc), but you did beat SFN by about ten minutes, even with you being out and all. Thanks again. Looks like they could make Wednesday after all.

/signs off to help reduce the noise, knows his contributions are minimal at best
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 01:52 am
Chris, I'll try to not post redundant stuff from now on (like Twitter updates, unless I'm sure they're new info, etc), but you did beat SFN by about ten minutes, even with you being out and all. Thanks again. Looks like they could make Wednesday after all.

/signs off to help reduce the noise, knows his contributions are minimal at best

Make that two of us  ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jongoff on 12/07/2010 01:54 am
The most likely path forward is that we will trim off the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, which is where the cracks are located, perform a thorough systems check and resume launch preparation.

Both from SpaceX.

Aha...the old 5-axis hand mill solution.

(Also known as an intern with a Dremel)
(laughed so hard at that one...)

Me too.  I'd hate to be the person who had to trim say an inch off of a 9ft thin-wall nozzle...without causing more damage...

~Jon
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: nblackwell on 12/07/2010 01:55 am
1. This flight doesn't overfly Europe.
2. You don't think Shuttle actually meets the FAA expected casualty requirements when they fly over Europe, do you?

Why is everyone dancing around it.  A process broke down.  Similar to something on the first F1 flight.

Agreed Jim - fair amount of dancing going on here in several areas:   Political favoritism, low transparency on the part of SpaceX, pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle, FAA waiver for Europe flyover, increased funding - during hard times in Washington - and I am sure there are other areas which you point out related to processing which you obviously have a lot of experience in.  This list is just a guess based on comments I've read here on L-2 so I could be wrong but I do see a lot of dancing going on.

Obviously SpaceX is getting a special deal out of WDC for now which is OK as we need them for ISS and I wish them the very best.  Poor planning on the part of congress over the years has caused a gap that has placed SpaceX in a challenging position to bail out part of the gap. 

Also I admire a man who puts up his own real cash to attempt to build a viable space program and he and his team has made very good progress in a short amount of time. 

So the reality is there is a lot of dancing going on and if I were in their shoes with the pressure WDC has placed on them maybe we all would be doing similar things.  All one has to do is watch the SpaceX team in their press conferences to realize how much pressure they are under. 

Whether folks like it or not the US needs SpaceX for now and thus the reason NASA was managing our expectations today by saying this is test program and they expect problems and they will continue to support SpaceX no matter what happens to the next two test flights. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/07/2010 01:55 am
anyone check the hd vid from the link (https://send.spacex.com/bds/Login.do?id=A043517252&p1=naj20dpsbfegcidgdlgffcj20) given on the press kit?  really see the green flash from the engine start up..great sound too ;)
hope the "rip" in the nozzle isn't a deal breaker for a launch before saturday..
cheers
jb.

Actually missed that!! Thanks for pointing it out.

Very cool!
That sound at the end...is that metal contraction from being so hot and now cooling down? Or is it some mechanical device?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/07/2010 02:00 am
Me too.  I'd hate to be the person who had to trim say an inch off of a 9ft thin-wall nozzle...without causing more damage...

~Jon

To your hand and arm too.  And a lot of wheels or drums will give their all for the cause too.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 02:04 am
Anyone wishing to have a good read on Niobium's history & use in rocket nozzles:

http://www.cbmm.com.br/portug/sources/techlib/science_techno/table_content/sub_3/images/pdfs/016.pdf


Robert, interesting paper. Too bad it doesn't have a tutorial section on machining niobium nozzles with a Dremel.

Does anyone have a link to a description of the nozzle mfg process? I couldn't find a description on the SpaceX site.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: alexw on 12/07/2010 02:11 am
The most likely path forward is that we will trim off the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, which is where the cracks are located, perform a thorough systems check and resume launch preparation.
Both from SpaceX.
Aha...the old 5-axis hand mill solution. (Also known as an intern with a Dremel)
(laughed so hard at that one...)
Me too.  I'd hate to be the person who had to trim say an inch off of a 9ft thin-wall nozzle...without causing more damage...
   ROFL. Roughing out niobium with a none-too-sharp blade was not my favorite time on the bandsaw. Hope they have plenty of dremel tips. And another intern with a good vacuum wand. (And, following Lee Jay's remark, a massage therapist!)
     -Alex

edit: typo name
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 02:13 am
1. This flight doesn't overfly Europe.
2. You don't think Shuttle actually meets the FAA expected casualty requirements when they fly over Europe, do you?

I was just going on what Jay Barbree and Ms Shotwell said today.  Jay asked if they had to get a special approval to fly at that inclination over Europe and she said basically the FAA approved their flight orbits.   So you are saying that they are not flying over Europe and Jay is wrong?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: nblackwell on 12/07/2010 02:19 am
For ISS flights, F9/Dragon would go over Europe, but not for this one.  So yes, Jay was wrong.  And Gwynne was right, FAA did approve the orbit, although she didn't correct him on the spot.

1. This flight doesn't overfly Europe.
2. You don't think Shuttle actually meets the FAA expected casualty requirements when they fly over Europe, do you?

I was just going on what Jay Barbree and Ms Shotwell said today.  Jay asked if they had to get a special approval to fly at that inclination over Europe and she said basically the FAA approved their flight orbits.   So you are saying that they are not flying over Europe and Jay is wrong?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2010 02:27 am
low transparency on the part of SpaceX, pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle, FAA waiver for Europe flyover

1.  They cant be transparent to LSP, they wont get a contract if they are
2.  Range gave them no special exceptions
3.  European flyover is not new.  Mars Odssey, STSS Demo did it
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 02:32 am
low transparency on the part of SpaceX, pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle, FAA waiver for Europe flyover

1.  They cant be transparent to LSP, they wont get a contract if they are
2.  Range gave them no special exceptions
3.  European flyover is not new.  Mars Odssey, STSS Demo did it

Thanks Jim.  That is good to know.  So they are flying over Europe so Jay's question was not well formed but factual.  I take it since you didn't list "political favoritism" you accept that as a given?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2010 02:38 am
low transparency on the part of SpaceX, pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle, FAA waiver for Europe flyover

1.  They cant be transparent to LSP, they wont get a contract if they are
2.  Range gave them no special exceptions
3.  European flyover is not new.  Mars Odssey, STSS Demo did it

Thanks Jim.  That is good to know.  So they are flying over Europe so Jay's question was not well formed but factual.  I take it since you didn't list "political favoritism" you accept that as a given?


I don't see any of that either

As for overflight, I don't know if this specific flight is doing it
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 02:43 am
low transparency on the part of SpaceX, pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle, FAA waiver for Europe flyover

1.  They cant be transparent to LSP, they wont get a contract if they are
2.  Range gave them no special exceptions
3.  European flyover is not new.  Mars Odssey, STSS Demo did it

Thanks Jim.  That is good to know.  So they are flying over Europe so Jay's question was not well formed but factual.  I take it since you didn't list "political favoritism" you accept that as a given?


I don't see any of that either

As for overflight, I don't know if this specific flight is doing it

You should know...so that is good.  So processing in your view is the only area of concern?   Was that your point about dancing in your post?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: nblackwell on 12/07/2010 02:49 am
Inclination as given in the press kit is 34.5 deg.  European overflight seems...unlikely.

low transparency on the part of SpaceX, pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle, FAA waiver for Europe flyover

1.  They cant be transparent to LSP, they wont get a contract if they are
2.  Range gave them no special exceptions
3.  European flyover is not new.  Mars Odssey, STSS Demo did it

Thanks Jim.  That is good to know.  So they are flying over Europe so Jay's question was not well formed but factual.  I take it since you didn't list "political favoritism" you accept that as a given?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 02:52 am
Inclination as given in the press kit is 34.5 deg.  European overflight seems...unlikely.

low transparency on the part of SpaceX, pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle, FAA waiver for Europe flyover

1.  They cant be transparent to LSP, they wont get a contract if they are
2.  Range gave them no special exceptions
3.  European flyover is not new.  Mars Odssey, STSS Demo did it

Thanks Jim.  That is good to know.  So they are flying over Europe so Jay's question was not well formed but factual.  I take it since you didn't list "political favoritism" you accept that as a given?

Thanks for clearing that up.  Jay Barbree is usually pretty good with his research.  I guess he missed this one or knows something we don't.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2010 03:15 am


You should know...so that is good.  So processing in your view is the only area of concern?   Was that your point about dancing in your post?

I was referring to people on this forum dancing around the point.    There processes (more than just ground ops) is my area of concern
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/07/2010 03:20 am
Jay Barbree is usually pretty good with his research.

That may have been the case back in the 80's, but if you listen to his questions at any shuttle pressers you'll quickly realize he isn't as up to par on what's really happening in space anymore.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: FinalFrontier on 12/07/2010 05:20 am
Well this was too bad that they didn't launch on schedule. At the same time I am much more happy to learn that they stopped in order to correct a problem, though minor, found near the end of closeout operations. I think it shows a mark of quality that they caught it and stopped to fix it as close to launch as they were. I wish Spacex the best of luck in a launch tomorrow.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/07/2010 05:51 am
The most likely path forward is that we will trim off the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, which is where the cracks are located, perform a thorough systems check and resume launch preparation.
Both from SpaceX.
Aha...the old 5-axis hand mill solution. (Also known as an intern with a Dremel)
(laughed so hard at that one...)
Me too.  I'd hate to be the person who had to trim say an inch off of a 9ft thin-wall nozzle...without causing more damage...
   ROFL. Roughing out niobium with a none-too-sharp blade was not my favorite time on the bandsaw. Hope they have plenty of dremel tips. And another intern with a good vacuum wand. (And, following Lee Jay's remark, a massage therapist!)
     -Alex

edit: typo name

Actually, if it's really only 0.3mm thick (about 0.012" or 30 gauge or half a dozen sheets of paper worth), I bet it would cut reasonably easily with aviation shears. Never having worked on a rocket nozzle, however, I can only guess whether that would produce an acceptable cut.

I've also never had to do a...what...maybe 20 foot long cut if they have to do the whole circumference? Talk about a hand cramp. Might it be acceptable just to scallop the affected area, and maybe the opposite side if they want to balance it?

On the other hand, it doesn't sound conclusive quite yet they won't decide the issue is serious enough to warrant replacing the whole nozzle extension.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: JohnWT on 12/07/2010 06:08 am
Aviation shears?  Hand cramp?  Dremel?  Surely you jest.

They can rotate the vehicle on its horizontal stand.  I would expect that they would use a suitable non distorting cutter (laser?) to trim the end off as they rotate the vehicle.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: AS-503 on 12/07/2010 06:16 am
I think they are going to fly Chuck Norris in to cut it with a karate chop.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/07/2010 06:21 am
Aviation shears?  Hand cramp?  Dremel?  Surely you jest.

They can rotate the vehicle on its horizontal stand.  I would expect that they would use a suitable non distorting cutter (laser?) to trim the end off as they rotate the vehicle.

Which goes back to the question of whether they can rollback, demate the stage, cut, remate, and rollout for a launch in the current NET (Wednesday or Thursday?).

So partially I was jesting, but partially I was thinking through ways to do this with minimal work. The question of whether or not those might yield acceptable cuts was serious.

SpaceX has previously stated (after the Falcon 1 nozzle impact during staging) that a niobium nozzle is pretty dent-tolerant. A wavy hand-cut seems like it should be acceptable, but on the other hand, if they crimp the metal a bit at every stroke as sometimes happens with shears, that could be more serious.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/07/2010 07:10 am
I guess he missed this one or knows something we don't.

Given what I've gathered so far, let's just say I'd trust nblackwell over Jay on this. You might consider there may be are other posters here involved with SpaceX one way or another, i.e. it's not Jim vs. everyone else.

If there's overly tolerant behavior for SpaceX' processes here, that doesn't mean "conspiracy" theories need to be made on the other side on how they get it easier at every step, compared to ULA or whatnot.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/07/2010 07:51 am
Falcon 9 Flight 1 was also 34.5 degrees, which caused a lot of hub hub over AU with regards to a glowing UFO. I'm with nblackwell on this one.

edit: I just spent the last hour or two playing with Orbiter, if they take relatively the same trajectory as Falcon 9 Flight 1 then on the second or third orbits it is passing quite nicely over, you guessed it, the Gulf of Mexico.

If you want to try it yourself you can grab Orbiter and the Falcon 9 plugin. It includes the Flight 1 scenario (including the nasty second stage rotation), so without having to do much fiddling, you can see that this trajectory fits well SpaceX's flight plan. It also explains (to me) why they only have 2.5/3 orbits at most, because the Gulf is a dwindling target on that trajectory.

I'm not an orbital mechanics guy by any means, but the evidence points to a similar flight plan to Falcon 9 Flight 1.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tigerade on 12/07/2010 10:06 am
Well, thankfully I have Wednesday and Thursday off.  I hope it will launch during one of those two days.  I am still not missing this thing!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/07/2010 10:56 am


You should know...so that is good.  So processing in your view is the only area of concern?   Was that your point about dancing in your post?

I was referring to people on this forum dancing around the point.    There processes (more than just ground ops) is my area of concern

Processes aren't everything, as shuttle has shown, the processes can be nailed down and you can still lose 7 astronauts.

For some managers "processes" and "CPI" replace good judgement and are a cover for lack of good leadership.

Not every problem is a process problem. And many process problems are just the wrong people in the job...

"Their processes," by the way, not "there".
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/07/2010 11:11 am
Aviation shears?  Hand cramp?  Dremel?  Surely you jest.

They can rotate the vehicle on its horizontal stand.  I would expect that they would use a suitable non distorting cutter (laser?) to trim the end off as they rotate the vehicle.

Which goes back to the question of whether they can rollback, demate the stage, cut, remate, and rollout for a launch in the current NET (Wednesday or Thursday?).

So partially I was jesting, but partially I was thinking through ways to do this with minimal work. The question of whether or not those might yield acceptable cuts was serious.

SpaceX has previously stated (after the Falcon 1 nozzle impact during staging) that a niobium nozzle is pretty dent-tolerant. A wavy hand-cut seems like it should be acceptable, but on the other hand, if they crimp the metal a bit at every stroke as sometimes happens with shears, that could be more serious.

Yes, dent tolerant (as to performance and all that), but also very fragile. There are SpaceX pictures showing the nozzle with a note on the sidewall saying something to this effect.

We're talking pretty exotic stuff here. Heck, if you read the document I had posted earlier about Niobium, they had to use EB (electron beam) to melt this stuff adequately. It's also very susceptible to high temp oxidation, requiring a very good coating as a preventative. By using a dremel, or any machining process, they circumvent that coating (assuming the nozzle has said coating). Not saying it can't be done, but very tricky.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/07/2010 11:14 am
Yes, dent tolerant (as to performance and all that), but also very fragile. There are SpaceX pictures showing the nozzle with a note on the sidewall saying something to this effect.

I read that the note was probably to prevent greasy fingers touching it which could prevent the coating from being properly applied, not because of fear of damage.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2010 11:27 am

1.  Processes aren't everything, as shuttle has shown, the processes can be nailed down and you can still lose 7 astronauts.

2.  For some managers "processes" and "CPI" replace good judgement and are a cover for lack of good leadership.

3.  Not every problem is a process problem. And many process problems are just the wrong people in the job...


1.  It was a process failures that lost 14 astronauts
2.   good judgment is part of a process
3.  It is a process to place the right people in the right job

"judgment" by the way, not "judgement ".
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: moose103 on 12/07/2010 12:18 pm
I was referring to people on this forum dancing around the point.    There processes (more than just ground ops) is my area of concern

A person with expertise got a lot more out of that news than I did.  I couldn't figure out how they were seeing a cracked nozzle inside an assembled rocket. 

So this is my guess: you think they have old pictures of the broken nozzle from days or weeks ago, and only now is somebody noticing.  Something went wrong to let them assemble it with the broken nozzle in the first place.  Thus the bad process, and a drop in confidence of competence, meaning they might make another error.  Is that right?


"judgment" by the way, not "judgement ".

What is a their or a there between friends.  I think both get the message across :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Mike_1179 on 12/07/2010 12:55 pm
So SpaceX (again) shows that they have some work to do to move up the Systems Engineering learning curve.  No one is saying their technical skills aren’t there, but rocket science is more than rocket science.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: go4mars on 12/07/2010 01:00 pm
"judgment" by the way, not "judgement ".

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/judgment_1#judgment_1__3 

Just the American way vs. the U.K./Commonwealth way to spell it.  Neither is wrong. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: pippin on 12/07/2010 01:05 pm
Hey, Jim's a rocket scientist, not a linguist ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/07/2010 01:06 pm
In the scheme of things, I'd rather have the process problem of discovering problems inconveniently late in the flow and consequently delaying the launch than the process problem of knowing it may be unsafe to proceed and doing so anyway. From the former the team can learn to do things better next time, but the arrogance of the latter can only be untaught by catastrophic failure.

I'm still unclear as to when the cracks occurred, when they should have discovered the cracks, and whether they were sitting on evidence of the cracks for some amount of time without realizing it or doing anything about. So I don't see how any outsider with any amount of industry experience can authoritatively declare that there are process problems, much less speak to the nature of those problems.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2010 01:09 pm
I was referring to people on this forum dancing around the point.    There processes (more than just ground ops) is my area of concern

A person with expertise got a lot more out of that news than I did.  I couldn't figure out how they were seeing a cracked nozzle inside an assembled rocket. 

So this is my guess: you think they have old pictures of the broken nozzle from days or weeks ago, and only now is somebody noticing.  Something went wrong to let them assemble it with the broken nozzle in the first place.  Thus the bad process, and a drop in confidence of competence, meaning they might make another error.  Is that right?


Yes,  many process errors

1.  bad hardware was created and passed inspection

2.  Bad hardware was put into a flight vehicle.

3.  The review of closeout photos was not completed before the move to the next major phase in the ground flow
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2010 01:15 pm
So I don't see how any outsider with any amount of industry experience can authoritatively declare that there are process problems,

Because they are blatantly obvious to the most casual of observers, unless one is drunk on koolade.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: gospacex on 12/07/2010 01:29 pm
According to SpaceX site, this is the photo of the first flight expansion nozzle for the Merlin Vacuum second stage engine:
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20100104_6mvacnozzle.jpg)

and this is expansion nozzle for Falcon 9 Flight 2:
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20100506_nozzle.jpg)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/07/2010 01:33 pm
So what's the latest word? Is it two small cracks or one 3 inch crack?

PS. You guys with the dremel tool, don't forget about the stiffening ring, you can use it as a straight edge, and you'll need a hot glue gun to put it back on.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Swatch on 12/07/2010 01:37 pm
I was referring to people on this forum dancing around the point.    There processes (more than just ground ops) is my area of concern

A person with expertise got a lot more out of that news than I did.  I couldn't figure out how they were seeing a cracked nozzle inside an assembled rocket. 

So this is my guess: you think they have old pictures of the broken nozzle from days or weeks ago, and only now is somebody noticing.  Something went wrong to let them assemble it with the broken nozzle in the first place.  Thus the bad process, and a drop in confidence of competence, meaning they might make another error.  Is that right?


Yes,  many process errors

1.  bad hardware was created and passed inspection

2.  Bad hardware was put into a flight vehicle.

3.  The review of closeout photos was not completed before the move to the next major phase in the ground flow

It sounds like you're working under the assumption that the damage was a preexisting condition that simply wasn't caught.   What would your opinion on the matter be if the damage had developed after integration with the vehicle?  In that situation, it seems their process caught it at exactly the right time.  I don't believe they've released information that implies one situation over the other, so I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: pippin on 12/07/2010 01:44 pm
In that case something's probably seriously wrong with the integration process...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/07/2010 01:55 pm

"judgment" by the way, not "judgement ".


Touche.

I just can't help it on the "autocorrect, but wrong word," but it's no different than a typo, you're right.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Namechange User on 12/07/2010 02:08 pm
Fascinating thread from a social and psychological perspective. 

From a technical perspective, Jim is quite correct in his comments.  Process is vital in this business and it appears anyway that something escaped somewhere along the line.  While likely not the end of the world and they are investigating and seemingly doing due diligence, some of the comments thus far are intriguing by some posters. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 02:10 pm
I was referring to people on this forum dancing around the point.    There processes (more than just ground ops) is my area of concern

A person with expertise got a lot more out of that news than I did.  I couldn't figure out how they were seeing a cracked nozzle inside an assembled rocket. 

So this is my guess: you think they have old pictures of the broken nozzle from days or weeks ago, and only now is somebody noticing.  Something went wrong to let them assemble it with the broken nozzle in the first place.  Thus the bad process, and a drop in confidence of competence, meaning they might make another error.  Is that right?

If you go back and read some of the previous posts and the "press" releases, what happened was that SpaceX took "closeout" photos inside the F9 interstage as a final inspection. A closeout inspection is routine and is the last thing you do before bolting the door closed, because it's the last chance you have to catch any hardware problems in the interstage before launch. So if I read the statement correctly, these are not "old pictures from weeks ago."

The closeout inspection did what it was supposed to do: it found a problem. And about this "process" thing. Hey, people, anyone who's been in this business knows that there's no such thing as perfection. The process of design, manufacturing, inspection, operation, and improvement is fundamentally a human process, of imperfect people using imperfect materials to try to do make a super-complex machine that's incredibly intolerant of imperfection, and thus incredibly difficult to do succesfully. That's true of Shuttle, F9, and every other large rocket that ever flew. The SpaceX closeout inspection process did what it was supposed to do: it found an imperfection. Now they'll fix it. How is this different from any other program? A potentially bad weld? QA maybe missed something? Wow, that's never happened on any other program...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: FinalFrontier on 12/07/2010 02:22 pm
Not a peep from Spacex on today's supposed launch attempt. No idea if there will be an attempt today. 3 inch crack may be a rumor.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/07/2010 02:24 pm
Not a peep from Spacex on today's supposed launch attempt. No idea if there will be an attempt today.

There won't be any. Try to keep up instead of overlooking information available and repeated over the last few pages of the thread.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: HIPAR on 12/07/2010 02:31 pm
A revelation of the 'facts' should help us understand the 'width' of that line separating human imperfection from incompetence. 

---  CHAS
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/07/2010 02:44 pm
The nature of any "process problem" depends on the root cause of the cracks. Without knowing how the cracks happened, there's no way of knowing what, if anything, was wrong with the process. All we know right now is that there is an anomaly with the vehicle which was identified before launch and is being addressed.

In this context, as I see it, the "process" is a learning process, about assimilating new information and responding appropriately. SpaceX has an experience problem. They haven't built up a large knowledge base about their operations that helps them foresee any potential issues before they occur. That can only come with flight history.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2010 02:51 pm

It sounds like you're working under the assumption that the damage was a preexisting condition that simply wasn't caught.   What would your opinion on the matter be if the damage had developed after integration with the vehicle?  In that situation, it seems their process caught it at exactly the right time.  I don't believe they've released information that implies one situation over the other, so I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Still a process failure. 
1.  The damage occurred
2.   the incident that caused the damage wasn't caught right away or still is unknown.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/07/2010 02:56 pm
The nature of any "process problem" depends on the root cause of the cracks. Without knowing how the cracks happened, there's no way of knowing what, if anything, was wrong with the process. All we know right now is that there is an anomaly with the vehicle which was identified before launch and is being addressed.

In this context, as I see it, the "process" is a learning process, about assimilating new information and responding appropriately. SpaceX has an experience problem. They haven't built up a large knowledge base about their operations that helps them foresee any potential issues before they occur. That can only come with flight history.

huh??

I guess some people don't understand what porosity in a weld is.

If you have porosity, you have a weak spot. That weak spot can initiate or propogate a crack.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 02:56 pm
The nature of any "process problem" depends on the root cause of the cracks. Without knowing how the cracks happened, there's no way of knowing what, if anything, was wrong with the process. All we know right now is that there is an anomaly with the vehicle which was identified before launch and is being addressed.

In this context, as I see it, the "process" is a learning process, about assimilating new information and responding appropriately. SpaceX has an experience problem. They haven't built up a large knowledge base about their operations that helps them foresee any potential issues before they occur. That can only come with flight history.

Agreed, and every vehicle program has had to climb the same learning curve. We all know that no orbital vehicle/team ever had all its processes ironed out after one launch.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Namechange User on 12/07/2010 03:05 pm
The nature of any "process problem" depends on the root cause of the cracks. Without knowing how the cracks happened, there's no way of knowing what, if anything, was wrong with the process. All we know right now is that there is an anomaly with the vehicle which was identified before launch and is being addressed.

In this context, as I see it, the "process" is a learning process, about assimilating new information and responding appropriately. SpaceX has an experience problem. They haven't built up a large knowledge base about their operations that helps them foresee any potential issues before they occur. That can only come with flight history.

Yes and no.  While I admit I have not scoured Facebook, Twitter and the rest of the internet to find out what SpaceX is saying, these cracks appear to be on a weld AFAIK.  There are really three possibilities to cause these cracks as I see it at this point:

1.  Impact damage from "something".  I consider this unlikely because if whatever hit it (a foot, tool, etc) would leave other witness marks.  To the best of my knowledge that has not been disclosed and it would have to be a hard hit to crack a weld, increasing the likelihood of additional witness marks.

2.  Low cycle fatigue.  Given this nozzle has been shipped to various facilities and rolled to the pad and back some number of times, I suppose it is possible.  This would be a design issue that should have likely been discovered during qualification and certification.  I also see this as a low likely hood since the area I believe this is in should be a low stress area, etc.

3.  A process escape.  When the weld is complete it should be reviewed by quality and/or materials and process (M&P or whatever they may call it) personnel.  This inspection generallly involves the use of X-rays or other NDE techniques to look for weld penetraion and no porosity, etc.  Perhaps upon further review of the data, this is what they discovered and are now investigating.  Based on what I have seen published here, this seems quite possible to me. 

So, in summary, it happens.  This business is hard and unforgiving.  Regardless of the reason for this, which I'm sure we will ultimately hear about one way or the other, that is why process is vital and important.  They found it and they are investigating.   

Like I said earlier, I have found some the comments fascinating on this thread for a variety of reasons beyond technical discussion. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: moose103 on 12/07/2010 03:08 pm
I read the statement correctly, these are not "old pictures from weeks ago."

So this is the other school of thought.  That they can and did just peer inside the assembled rocket on the pad.  So rather than old closeout pictures and a problem they missed earlier, you believe it might be new pictures and a new problem.  Meaning they didn't MISS a cracked nozzle.

In this case we can imagine: maybe it banged against something during the static fire, or a manufacturing issue caused it to be brittle, or...

Wow this really is speculating with ALMOST no information isn't it.  Even Shotwell didn't really know what was going on, so how do I!!!!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 03:22 pm
I read the statement correctly, these are not "old pictures from weeks ago."

So this is the other school of thought.  That they can and did just peer inside the assembled rocket on the pad.  So rather than old closeout pictures and a problem they missed earlier, you believe it might be new pictures and a new problem.  Meaning they didn't MISS a cracked nozzle.

In this case we can imagine: maybe it banged against something during the static fire, or a manufacturing issue caused it to be brittle, or...

Wow this really is speculating with ALMOST no information isn't it.  Even Shotwell didn't really know what was going on, so how do I!!!!

Look, this isn't that complicated:

1. You inspect and take closeout photos just before you "close" whatever compartment it is that you're "closing," whenever that happens in the process flow. So, by design, this is the last time you ever look inside the area before launch, and then you bolt the cover on, or whatever. Someone was looking at the closeout photos, maybe someone back in Hawthorne, and saw something they didn't like. They opened up the compartment on the pad and did another visual and confirmed that, yes, there were in fact cracks.

2. Obviously, the cracks occurred before the closeout photos were taken. Exactly when they occurred and how is under investigation.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 04:11 pm
Jay Barbree is usually pretty good with his research.

That may have been the case back in the 80's, but if you listen to his questions at any shuttle pressers you'll quickly realize he isn't as up to par on what's really happening in space anymore.

Interesting....good to know.   I have not followed things for a while so that makes sense.  Thanks
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/07/2010 04:31 pm

PS. You guys with the dremel tool, don't forget about the stiffening ring, you can use it as a straight edge, and you'll need a hot glue gun to put it back on.

I forgot about the stiffening ring. Isn't there actually two of them?

Robertross - I'll have to read the paper you posted later today when I have time.

Small update from the Orlando Sentinel this morning. Looks like Wednesday is out:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-launch-advancer-20101206,0,1049791.story

Quote
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said that If the nozzle had to be replaced, the launch could slip to Friday or Saturday.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/07/2010 04:33 pm
Just received by email what Chris Bergin posted here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667156#msg667156

(EDIT: Yes, Chris Bergin posted this previously.)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/07/2010 04:37 pm
Just received by email:
Quote
UPDATE:  COTS Demo 1 Launch Activities
 
SpaceX engineers are analyzing two small cracks in the aft end of the 2nd stage engine nozzle extension.  These cracks are in a region near the end of the nozzle extension where there is very little stress and so they would not cause a flight failure by themselves.  However, further investigation is warranted to ensure that these cracks are not symptomatic of a more serious problem.
A decision on whether or not to attempt launch on Wednesday will be provided this evening [Tuesday].

The bell shaped Merlin Vacuum nozzle extension is made of niobium sheet alloy, measures 9 feet tall and 8 feet at the base diameter, and thins out to about twice the thickness of a soda can at the end.  Although made of an exotic refractory alloy metal with a melting temperature high enough to boil steel, this component is geometrically the simplest part of the engine.

It is important to note that the niobium nozzle extension increases the efficiency of the Merlin engine in vacuum and is installed by default on all upper stage Merlin engines, but that efficiency increase is not required for this mission.  The nozzle extension is most helpful when launching very heavy satellites or to maximize throw mass to distant destinations like Mars.  The most likely path forward is that we will trim off the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, which is where the cracks are located, perform a thorough systems check and resume launch preparation.

Chris posted this yesterday.
You are correct. I thought it was a little different, but it isn't.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 04:43 pm
I guess he missed this one or knows something we don't.

Given what I've gathered so far, let's just say I'd trust nblackwell over Jay on this. You might consider there may be are other posters here involved with SpaceX one way or another, i.e. it's not Jim vs. everyone else.

If there's overly tolerant behavior for SpaceX' processes here, that doesn't mean "conspiracy" theories need to be made on the other side on how they get it easier at every step, compared to ULA or whatnot.

I watched the presser again and based on the comments here - what she might have said was "we are not flying over Europe" versus a short "The FAA has approved our flight."   This would have been a more clear answer but it does sound like Jay was off the mark on this one.  As to conspiracy theories - anyone who doesn't believe political favorites do not receive easier processes than others is either new at this or very naive.  It is clear they are the political favorite at this time due to the desire of the WH and NASA to promote "commercialization of space".   Don't kid yourself.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 12/07/2010 04:48 pm
Small update from the Orlando Sentinel this morning. Looks like Wednesday is out:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-launch-advancer-20101206,0,1049791.story

Quote
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said that If the nozzle had to be replaced, the launch could slip to Friday or Saturday.

I don't think that the Sentinel article is an update. It's simply the information that was provided at the press conference, yesterday.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Retired Downrange on 12/07/2010 04:54 pm
...and then Discovery was heard to say to Falcon 9:

"My cracks are bigger than your cracks."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/07/2010 04:54 pm
It is clear they are the political favorite at this time due to the desire of the WH and NASA to promote "commercialization of space".   Don't kid yourself.

Oh, please.

1) Political favoritism,
2) low transparency on the part of SpaceX,
3) pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle,
4) FAA waiver for Europe flyover,
5) increased funding - during hard times in Washington

1) What favoritism? The fact Obama visited SLC-40 instead of SLC-41 where an Atlas was sitting with a military payload? I don't exactly see either LockMart, Boeing, ULA, Orbital being locked out of any "commercial" crew program.

2) Low transparency on what? Did you actually watch the press conference, specifically NASA managers' comments on this topic? Or do you expect they're obliged to tell outside people *everything*? Were they not forthcoming with telling us what the current issue is? You want actual images of the cracks?

3) What pressure? Are you talking about the 15 minute extension granted by the Range the other day? You think the Range guys wouldn't do the same for ULA or NASA, but would rather close up shop at 3 PM sharp because, hey, it's their end of day?

4) I think nblackwell already made the point here.

5) What increased funding?

Anyone can see things they want to see. The question is are they really there?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/07/2010 04:55 pm
...and then Discovery was heard to say to Falcon 9:

"My cracks are bigger than your cracks."
LOL!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 05:00 pm
 Quote: "It is clear they are the political favorite at this time due to the desire of the WH and NASA to promote "commercialization of space".   Don't kid yourself."


Is this a surprise/secret to anybody? Why would the WH/NASA not want F9 and Taurus II to succeed, after choosing to go this route? Because they'd rather keep flying to ISS on Aeroflot? They're putting they're money on SpaceX and Orbital, so of course they want them to succeed.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Swatch on 12/07/2010 05:01 pm
...and then Discovery was heard to say to Falcon 9:

"My cracks are bigger than your cracks."

"It's not the size that matters..."


... it's the delay it causes.  :D
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/07/2010 05:36 pm
NASA now reporting that launch set for Wednesday (at earliest). I thought we would not get a definite until tonight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/07/2010 05:38 pm

It sounds like you're working under the assumption that the damage was a preexisting condition that simply wasn't caught.   What would your opinion on the matter be if the damage had developed after integration with the vehicle?  In that situation, it seems their process caught it at exactly the right time.  I don't believe they've released information that implies one situation over the other, so I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Still a process failure. 
1.  The damage occurred
2.   the incident that caused the damage wasn't caught right away or still is unknown.

This whole "SpaceX has bad processes" allegation sounds like unsupported government NASA-managese.

First, for a process to be "good," it has to be iterated and repeated over the long term. Because the second F9 flight is delayed, hardly qualifies as when you determine your processes are "broken," or bad.

Maybe you say that if the F9 Flight 2 crashes to the pad due to a repeateable process failure. But you don't add expensive steps along the way JUST IN CASE, unless you're sure they're actually necessary.

But there is cost to every added concrete assurance step in either time, money, or usually both. Only in a "prevent failure at any cost" environment is it reasonable to insist that every conceiveable assurance step has to be taken.

If this was the first manned COTS-D I'd say you might have a point. But it ain't. There's no call for nuclear-weapons level assurance procedures here. Failure does HAVE to be an option, albeit a very rare one.

If the entrepenurs in silicon valley had taken the "everything can be prevented by good processes" outlook towards semiconductors in the 70s, our desktops would still be on iron-core memory 16Kbyte computers like shuttle was until recently.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 12/07/2010 05:44 pm
Quote: "It is clear they are the political favorite at this time due to the desire of the WH and NASA to promote "commercialization of space".   Don't kid yourself."


Is this a surprise/secret to anybody? Why would the WH/NASA not want F9 and Taurus II to succeed, after choosing to go this route? Because they'd rather keep flying to ISS on Aeroflot? They're putting they're money on SpaceX and Orbital, so of course they want them to succeed.
Lets not get so tied up in agendas that we can't see the forest through the trees.

Shuttle is gracefully concluding its program - what do we fly with now? We are way overdue here.

Nothing has as much traction but SpaceX at the moment. Anyone who isn't crossing fingers (and toes) right now for these guys are anti HSF jerks.

You can wish many things well simultaneously - its not a "zero sum" game. I could care less who gets cut what slack, so long as we have players in this game that can do their best to fly safely.

If I notice a process failure, I'll quietly, appropriately, carefully let them know. Critique helps you get things right. They need every bit they can get. In a "helpful" way.

Because I want them to win. Because then we all win. What goes around comes around. That's why we are the "United" States. We unite around our joint strengths. As we should do with everyone who makes it onto the pad.

Thats assuming that ... we all want to win ... don't we? Much later further down the line ... you can take score on how things worked.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 12/07/2010 05:45 pm
It is clear they are the political favorite at this time due to the desire of the WH and NASA to promote "commercialization of space".   Don't kid yourself.

Oh, please.

1) Political favoritism,
2) low transparency on the part of SpaceX,
3) pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle,
4) FAA waiver for Europe flyover,
5) increased funding - during hard times in Washington

1) What favoritism? The fact Obama visited SLC-40 instead of SLC-41 where an Atlas was sitting with a military payload? I don't exactly see either LockMart, Boeing, ULA, Orbital being locked out of any "commercial" crew program.

2) Low transparency on what? Did you actually watch the press conference, specifically NASA managers' comments on this topic? Or do you expect they're obliged to tell outside people *everything*? Were they not forthcoming with telling us what the current issue is? You want actual images of the cracks?

3) What pressure? Are you talking about the 15 minute extension granted by the Range the other day? You think the Range guys wouldn't do the same for ULA or NASA, but would rather close up shop at 3 PM sharp because, hey, it's their end of day?

4) I think nblackwell already made the point here.

5) What increased funding?

Anyone can see things they want to see. The question is are they really there?

I agree with Ugordan on this. If you are going to make claims like those, you will need better arguments than a "don't be so naive" argument. Although I saw that you later back tracked on many of your arguments once Jim told you this was not the case.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 05:54 pm
You sound naďve. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 12/07/2010 05:55 pm
This whole "SpaceX has bad processes" allegation sounds like unsupported government NASA-managese.

I don't know any details first hand. 

That said, this is reported to be a defective weld which has cracked (high porosity weld which now has an identified defect).

IF That is the case, then this should have been caught early in production.  The weld would have been defective at fab, you don't get bad welds by shipping the product.  The production process for the nozzle extension (Fab AND QA) appear to have failed.  If so, shame on SpaceX for that process escape.

The process that didn't fail apparently is that closeout photo analysis identified a defect.  If so, kudos to SpaceX for that process success.

Quote
First, for a process to be "good," it has to be iterated and repeated over the long term. Because the second F9 flight is delayed, hardly qualifies as when you determine your processes are "broken," or bad.

Wrong.  For a process to be good, it has to work, work repeatably, and do so with the minimal amount of process overhead on the enterprise.

Here, it appears that the nozzle fabrication and inspection process didn't work correctly.

I hope that SpaceX comment further- they've been pretty darned open, and it's a promising sign that they're willing to admit mistakes and learn from them.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/07/2010 06:04 pm
You sound naďve. 
Is it naďveté or is it merely a different perspective than your own?

nooneofconsequence has it right. As does Jim, of course.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 06:05 pm
Depends on who has the most facts.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/07/2010 06:05 pm
You sound naďve. 

I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions. Your point has been taken, I apologize for the error of my ways.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Avron on 12/07/2010 06:21 pm
Question, can you be out of process, if you are still in demo stage, i.e non production?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 12/07/2010 06:23 pm
You sound naďve. 

Your post made me laugh which was likely the intent. :)

Anyways, you have back tracked on most of your points. So I don't see the point on harping on this. 

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2010 06:23 pm

This whole "SpaceX has bad processes" allegation sounds like unsupported government NASA-managese.


This whole post smacks of nuspace koolade. 

It is not an allegation but reality that has been proven over and over.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/07/2010 06:36 pm
This whole "SpaceX has bad processes" allegation sounds like unsupported government NASA-managese.

I'll try to keep my comment short, then bow out, because we're going in marginally off-topic circles.

If I remember right, what was said was not, "SpaceX has bad processes," but rather that "SpaceX had a process failure." Generalization versus specific case.

And it's true. An apparent defect got through all the levels of quality control except the last. Yes, the last level succeeded, but that's definitely not ideal. It's inconvenient, and it's hypothetically the least reliable way to catch small details like this.

But don't get worked up about it. The fact that they failed to catch a defect is not the end of the world for them, nor is the fact that people on the internet noticed the mistake.

NASA's faced far worse than Jim pointing out they had a process failure. Congressmen questioning the value of NASA and major news outlets publishing syndicated editorials calling for the end to human spaceflight haven't killed off these programs. SpaceX are grownups. They'll survive a small QA process failure, too, as long as they recognize the need for improvement.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Space Pete on 12/07/2010 06:46 pm
Some hi-res photos of the Falcon 9 static firing are now up at the KSC Media Gallery!

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/07/2010 06:48 pm
Why would someone take photos of a nozzle aft-end weld while it was in the interstage, mated and maybe vertical?  That doesn't make sense.  IMEO, these photos have been around for months or weeks, and they're just now looking at them.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Namechange User on 12/07/2010 06:52 pm
Why would someone take photos of a nozzle aft-end weld while it was in the interstage, mated and maybe vertical?  That doesn't make sense.  IMEO, these photos have been around for months or weeks, and they're just now looking at them.

Agreed.  I think what may have been likely is that someone was reviewing the build package, the x-rays, etc I discussed earlier, for this nozzle, noted a possible discrepency, and while investigating that went into the interstage to document the current condition for data collection. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 07:08 pm
Why would someone take photos of a nozzle aft-end weld while it was in the interstage, mated and maybe vertical?  That doesn't make sense.  IMEO, these photos have been around for months or weeks, and they're just now looking at them.

I'll just make 2 quick points:

1. The NASA press release clearly stated that the defect was spotted during a "routine review of close-out photos." Their phrase: close-out.

2. It's not unprecedented to do a nozzle inspection like this after mating and before closing out an interstage. I personally inspected the TOS/Orbus 21 carbon-carbon nozzle AFTER stacking on Titan III for the Mars Observer mission, as a final check to verify that the nozzle hadn't been damaged during stacking. Yes, a weld crack may have occurred much earlier in the process. But it's not terribly surprising to me that SpaceX would take one last look at the nozzle before closing out the interstage.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/07/2010 07:09 pm
Why would someone take photos of a nozzle aft-end weld while it was in the interstage, mated and maybe vertical?  That doesn't make sense.  IMEO, these photos have been around for months or weeks, and they're just now looking at them.

Agreed.  I think what may have been likely is that someone was reviewing the build package, the x-rays, etc I discussed earlier, for this nozzle, noted a possible discrepency, and while investigating that went into the interstage to document the current condition for data collection. 
Sounds reasonable to me.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/07/2010 07:13 pm
It is clear they are the political favorite at this time due to the desire of the WH and NASA to promote "commercialization of space".   Don't kid yourself.

Oh, please.

1) Political favoritism,
2) low transparency on the part of SpaceX,
3) pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle,
4) FAA waiver for Europe flyover,
5) increased funding - during hard times in Washington

1) What favoritism? The fact Obama visited SLC-40 instead of SLC-41 where an Atlas was sitting with a military payload? I don't exactly see either LockMart, Boeing, ULA, Orbital being locked out of any "commercial" crew program.

2) Low transparency on what? Did you actually watch the press conference, specifically NASA managers' comments on this topic? Or do you expect they're obliged to tell outside people *everything*? Were they not forthcoming with telling us what the current issue is? You want actual images of the cracks?

3) What pressure? Are you talking about the 15 minute extension granted by the Range the other day? You think the Range guys wouldn't do the same for ULA or NASA, but would rather close up shop at 3 PM sharp because, hey, it's their end of day?

4) I think nblackwell already made the point here.

5) What increased funding?

Anyone can see things they want to see. The question is are they really there?

I agree with Ugordan on this. If you are going to make claims like those, you will need better arguments than a "don't be so naive" argument. Although I saw that you later back tracked on many of your arguments once Jim told you this was not the case.

Backdown? - I would call it being reasonable when better data is brought forward.  Jay Barbree is a veteran reporter and maybe he got the question all wrong about the European flyover and obviously the response to his question was not very good either.  I accept that based on some folks here like Jim who seem to know this topic. Jim has proven to have good data and I trust his judgment in areas he has expertise. So on that issue yes I concede that there is better data out there and this item may be non important and Jay should not have raise the question. 

The other topics I mentioned are clear to those who work near to these areas but if you are an outsider I can understand how it might be hard to believe this.  Naive is a strong word but I see it a lot from people who don't know how things work within our government.  Go work in WDC for five years and let me know what you think after that. 

Focused favoritism, relatively low transparency overall (did you not hear the questions in the presser over this - not just my opinion), Range streamlining in certain areas, increased/add on funding - its all there if you will allow yourself to be objective.   Shooting the messenger is not going to change reality. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: sdsds on 12/07/2010 07:32 pm
Quote from: SpaceX
The most likely path forward is that we will trim off the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, which is where the cracks are located, perform a thorough systems check and resume launch preparation.

First thoughts:  "Incredible.  They must be insane."

But then, trying to interpret this in a way that doesn't seem surreal, maybe SpaceX knew long ago that this portion of the nozzle extension was going to be difficult to manufacture and might cause trouble.  Maybe they have already done a complete analysis of the vehicle flying in the "shortened extension" configuration, including performance effects, vibro-acoustic coupling effects, and kinematics.  Maybe they already have a process for removing this part from the nozzle extension, tested on other units that failed in this way during manufacturing.

Yes, with all that, the idea doesn't seem surreal at all.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/07/2010 07:32 pm
Go work in WDC for five years and let me know what you think after that. 

Wouldn't a lobotomy be quicker and less painful?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/07/2010 07:35 pm
1. The NASA press release clearly stated that the defect was spotted during a "routine review of close-out photos." Their phrase: close-out.

On another issue several years ago, I was corrected by public affairs officers even though they were technically inaccurate.  They had already gone public and didn't want to be seen as wrong.

(shrugs)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: llo2015 on 12/07/2010 07:40 pm
Jay Barbree's question about launch azimuth and European flyover was exactly correct.  In the event of a second stage engine-out event during the last minute of powered flight, SpaceX's Falcon-9/Dragon has sufficient velocity and energy to make a sub-orbital European over flight and uncontrolled decent.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 07:41 pm
1. The NASA press release clearly stated that the defect was spotted during a "routine review of close-out photos." Their phrase: close-out.

On another issue several years ago, I was corrected by public affairs officers even though they were technically inaccurate.  They had already gone public and didn't want to be seen as wrong.

(shrugs)

Granted, wouldn't be the first or last time PAO is wrong! Just sayin...that's how the whole "close-out" thing got started.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/07/2010 07:58 pm
Jay Barbree's question about launch azimuth and European flyover was exactly correct.  In the event of a second stage engine-out event during the last minute of powered flight, SpaceX's Falcon-9/Dragon has sufficient velocity and energy to make a sub-orbital European over flight and uncontrolled decent.

At 34.5 target inclination on this flight, that's going to be a stretch.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: wjbarnett on 12/07/2010 08:30 pm
Since I just checked, I thought I would share: Gibraltar is at 36N
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: yg1968 on 12/07/2010 08:33 pm
It is clear they are the political favorite at this time due to the desire of the WH and NASA to promote "commercialization of space".   Don't kid yourself.

Oh, please.

1) Political favoritism,
2) low transparency on the part of SpaceX,
3) pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle,
4) FAA waiver for Europe flyover,
5) increased funding - during hard times in Washington

1) What favoritism? The fact Obama visited SLC-40 instead of SLC-41 where an Atlas was sitting with a military payload? I don't exactly see either LockMart, Boeing, ULA, Orbital being locked out of any "commercial" crew program.

2) Low transparency on what? Did you actually watch the press conference, specifically NASA managers' comments on this topic? Or do you expect they're obliged to tell outside people *everything*? Were they not forthcoming with telling us what the current issue is? You want actual images of the cracks?

3) What pressure? Are you talking about the 15 minute extension granted by the Range the other day? You think the Range guys wouldn't do the same for ULA or NASA, but would rather close up shop at 3 PM sharp because, hey, it's their end of day?

4) I think nblackwell already made the point here.

5) What increased funding?

Anyone can see things they want to see. The question is are they really there?

I agree with Ugordan on this. If you are going to make claims like those, you will need better arguments than a "don't be so naive" argument. Although I saw that you later back tracked on many of your arguments once Jim told you this was not the case.

Backdown? - I would call it being reasonable when better data is brought forward.  Jay Barbree is a veteran reporter and maybe he got the question all wrong about the European flyover and obviously the response to his question was not very good either.  I accept that based on some folks here like Jim who seem to know this topic. Jim has proven to have good data and I trust his judgment in areas he has expertise. So on that issue yes I concede that there is better data out there and this item may be non important and Jay should not have raise the question. 

The other topics I mentioned are clear to those who work near to these areas but if you are an outsider I can understand how it might be hard to believe this.  Naive is a strong word but I see it a lot from people who don't know how things work within our government.  Go work in WDC for five years and let me know what you think after that. 

Focused favoritism, relatively low transparency overall (did you not hear the questions in the presser over this - not just my opinion), Range streamlining in certain areas, increased/add on funding - its all there if you will allow yourself to be objective.   Shooting the messenger is not going to change reality. 

Jim said that the FAA did not grant any favours to SpaceX and you seem to have accepted that. So I was under the impression that you changed your mind on this issue.

As far as favoritism, SpaceX was granted money under COTS which was a program started under Griffin and Bush. This is a continuation of the same program. Let's wait and see what happens under commercial crew before saying that there is SpaceX favoratism. Remember that SpaceX did not win any awards under CCDev 1 despite this "alleged" favoratism.

I am not convinced that the additionnal COTS money will ever be appropriated by Congress and NASA has yet to even make a sollicitation for this new COTS round. Chances are by the time that it gets appropriated (if it ever is), Space X will no longer need it. Orbital has more chances of being awarded that money than SpaceX does.

SpaceX has to fly 3 COTS demo flights. Orbital only has to fly one test flight under COTS. Some of the COTS money could be awarded to Orbital in order for them to provide more test flights. Some additional money could also be provided for Orbital to develop down mass capacity (which they do not currently intend to provide). Most of this additionnal COTS money will likely be going to Orbital if you ask me. But if Spacex is awarded commercial crew development money and Orbital isn't, perhaps the results will even out.   

Incidentally, SpaceX also gets less money per flight (and per KG of cargo) than Orbital in their CRS contract. This also tends to discredit your SpaceX favoratism theory. Incidentally, I am not saying that there is a favoratism towards Orbital. Orbital negotiated a better deal. That's all there is to it.   

On your last point, I agree with the lack of transparency. But that is typical of private companies. They try to disclose as little information as possible. Partly because they don't want their competition to know what they are doing. Partly because the more information you give, the more your enemies can attempt to use it against you. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 09:09 pm
Nice commentary in Space News:

http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/101206-not-because-easy-because-hard.html
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 12/07/2010 09:23 pm
if it is too believed..wednesday launch...Orlando Sentinel article (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-advance-prep-120710-20101207,0,4267709.story)
jb
Quote
The long-awaited first launch, which was delayed a day by cracks in the nozzle of the upper-stage engine of the company's Falcon 9 rocket, was set after engineers decided that they could get rid of the cracks by trimming a few feet off the nozzle extension without significantly impacting the performance of the rocket, according to company sources.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 09:26 pm
Quote:

"The long-awaited first launch, which was delayed a day by cracks in the nozzle of the upper-stage engine of the company's Falcon 9 rocket, was set after engineers decided that they could get rid of the cracks by trimming a few feet off the nozzle extension without significantly impacting the performance of the rocket, according to company sources."

A few feet? LOL. Try "inches."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: llo2015 on 12/07/2010 09:34 pm
Since I just checked, I thought I would share: Gibraltar is at 36N

Thanks for your info -

Launch Azimuth of 69.7° from KSC/Cape Canaveral corresponds to an orbit of 34.5° inclination.  This launch azimuth takes the Falcon-9/Dragon in a direction north of Bermuda and a subsequent over-flight track over Gibraltar and the Mediterranean makes sense.

Concerning Jay Barbree's question, Europe or Gibraltar are basically the same concerning his main point which was over-flight due to an event of an engine-out late in powered flight and the potential consequences of an uncontrolled descent.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: XNASA on 12/07/2010 09:41 pm
Quote:

"The long-awaited first launch, which was delayed a day by cracks in the nozzle of the upper-stage engine of the company's Falcon 9 rocket, was set after engineers decided that they could get rid of the cracks by trimming a few feet off the nozzle extension without significantly impacting the performance of the rocket, according to company sources."

A few feet? LOL. Try "inches."

Nope, a few feet is correct.  That isn't a typo.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Johnny Rönnberg on 12/07/2010 09:43 pm
Nasa twitter
It's Go for launch. The launch of the SpaceX Falcon 9 is on for Weds.The window opens at 9am ET. Watch it on
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 09:43 pm
Quote:

"The long-awaited first launch, which was delayed a day by cracks in the nozzle of the upper-stage engine of the company's Falcon 9 rocket, was set after engineers decided that they could get rid of the cracks by trimming a few feet off the nozzle extension without significantly impacting the performance of the rocket, according to company sources."

A few feet? LOL. Try "inches."

Nope, a few feet is correct.  That isn't a typo.

As in, a few feet of length???? Holy moly...please elaborate.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 12/07/2010 09:47 pm
Nice to know there's enough margin that it can spare that much, isn't it ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: PahTo on 12/07/2010 09:50 pm

I was thinking the same thing.  Now I wonder if the nozzle "repair" would be an issue if they were launching to a 51.6 inclination...

Nice to know there's enough margin that it can spare that much, isn't it ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 09:51 pm
Nice to know there's enough margin that it can spare that much, isn't it ;)

I guess they used more than a Dremel...sounds like this was a job for the SawzAll!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 12/07/2010 09:54 pm
curious to see how they did it?  stiffener ring i guess isn't needed since it really isn;t being moved much except straight up ;)
jb
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/07/2010 09:55 pm
Quote:

"The long-awaited first launch, which was delayed a day by cracks in the nozzle of the upper-stage engine of the company's Falcon 9 rocket, was set after engineers decided that they could get rid of the cracks by trimming a few feet off the nozzle extension without significantly impacting the performance of the rocket, according to company sources."

A few feet? LOL. Try "inches."

Nope, a few feet is correct.  That isn't a typo.

As in, a few feet of length???? Holy moly...please elaborate.

To save bandwidth, from the picture on this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667323#msg667323

they must be lopping the bell off at the lowest weld joint (probably just below it).
Perfect line to follow ;)

I was shocked too at the 'few feet' comment, but at 9 feet tall, taking maybe 3 feet off probably isn't at any critical point on the curve. Closer to throat, absolutely, but out near the nozzle's end, probably a 5% hit (guesstimate).
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chandonn on 12/07/2010 09:55 pm
Nice to know there's enough margin that it can spare that much, isn't it ;)

I guess they used more than a Dremel...sounds like this was a job for the SawzAll!

... available at your local Spaceport Depot Store, next to the glue gun and the Duct Tape!

;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 10:01 pm
Quote:

"The long-awaited first launch, which was delayed a day by cracks in the nozzle of the upper-stage engine of the company's Falcon 9 rocket, was set after engineers decided that they could get rid of the cracks by trimming a few feet off the nozzle extension without significantly impacting the performance of the rocket, according to company sources."

A few feet? LOL. Try "inches."

Nope, a few feet is correct.  That isn't a typo.

As in, a few feet of length???? Holy moly...please elaborate.

To save bandwidth, from the picture on this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667323#msg667323

they must be lopping the bell off at the lowest weld joint (probably just below it).
Perfect line to follow ;)

I was shocked too at the 'few feet' comment, but at 9 feet tall, taking maybe 3 feet off probably isn't at any critical point on the curve. Closer to throat, absolutely, but out near the nozzle's end, probably a 5% hit (guesstimate).


Well, and it's also a thermal issue because now you have a plume expanding "feet" closer than to the aft end of the stage than designed...hope they have plenty of insulation there! And there was that thermal issue last time on S2...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Mapperuo on 12/07/2010 10:02 pm
Quite shocked they have chosen to lop the end off rather than wait to get a new one which I thought they could get easily for Thursday?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/07/2010 10:03 pm
Not cleared for launch just yet....

SpaceX to media: "SpaceX engineers are currently performing their final inspections before launch.  So far everything looks good, but we won't have the final all-clear until around 9PM EST.

Watch for updates."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpaceX_MS on 12/07/2010 10:06 pm
That had to be put out as we've no idea why NASA would say we're already a go. We're close to it, but not yet.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 10:08 pm
That had to be put out as we've no idea why NASA would say we're already a go. We're close to it, but not yet.

SpaceX, can you provide any further details on the nozzle mod process?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/07/2010 10:09 pm
That had to be put out as we've no idea why NASA would say we're already a go. We're close to it, but not yet.

NASA seem convinced :)

Dec. 7, 2010

Michael Braukus
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1979
[email protected]

George H. Diller
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
321-867-2468
[email protected]

Josh Byerly
Johnson Space Center, Houston
281-483-5111
[email protected]

MEDIA ADVISORY: M10-170

DEMONSTRATION FLIGHT OF FALCON 9 ROCKET SET FOR WEDNESDAY

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The first demonstration flight of SpaceX's
Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule for NASA's Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services program has been scheduled for Wednesday,
Dec. 8, from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The launch
window extends from 9 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. EST.

During a routine inspection this week, SpaceX engineers observed two
small cracks in the rocket's second stage engine nozzle. SpaceX
completed repairs to the cracked nozzle Tuesday.

Live coverage of the launch will air on NASA Television and the
agency's website. For streaming information, visit:



http://www.nasa.gov/ntv


For more information about the launch, visit:



http://www.nasa.gov/cots

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/07/2010 10:30 pm
Well, and it's also a thermal issue because now you have a plume expanding "feet" closer than to the aft end of the stage than designed...hope they have plenty of insulation there! And there was that thermal issue last time on S2...

Yes, even the smallest change can come back and bite you when it comes to rockets. I hope they thought this over well, they already have experience with "small" changes.

Apparently it's a 4-foot section of the nozzle.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: HOTTOL on 12/07/2010 10:33 pm
Quoting SPACEFLIGHT NOW -Falcon 9 launch timeline
"T+09:35 Dragon Separation
The Dragon capsule separates from the second stage, leaving behind its unpressurized trunk section, which contains secondary CubeSat payloads."

1- Do they mean the trunk will split from Dragon capsule right at Stage 2 sep. ?
In this case the rest of the in-space operations would be made without the trunk attached to Dragon !
2- If yes, how will they separate the trunk from the second stage once Dragon has gone away ?
3- How will they release the Cube Sats which are said to be in the trunk ?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 10:35 pm
Well, and it's also a thermal issue because now you have a plume expanding "feet" closer than to the aft end of the stage than designed...hope they have plenty of insulation there! And there was that thermal issue last time on S2...

Yes, even the smallest change can come back and bite you when it comes to rockets. I hope they thought this over well, they already have experience with "small" changes.

Apparently it's a 4-foot section of the nozzle.

Wow, that is non-trivial. These guys are smarter than I am, but I sure hope they did their homework...with a very sharp pencil.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 12/07/2010 10:36 pm
Nice to know there's enough margin that it can spare that much, isn't it ;)

Now we get to learn a bit more about SpaceX.

For example, is the vehicle and (most importantly) FSW ready to deal with a few percent underperformance of the second stage?

Do they just update tables, or spin a whole new FSW build?  IF a new build, how do they QA the new build.  For that matter, how do they handle QA of the overall system configuration of the now-modified integrated vehicle?

Images of Ariane 5 501 pop into mind...

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/07/2010 10:38 pm

Well, and it's also a thermal issue because now you have a plume expanding "feet" closer than to the aft end of the stage than designed...hope they have plenty of insulation there! And there was that thermal issue last time on S2...

Very true. Although the radiant heat from the nozzle is also always there.

There will probably be some charring. But it is a 'test flight' after all, and very short.

Rough sketch attached.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/07/2010 10:40 pm
For example, is the vehicle and (most importantly) FSW ready to deal with a few percent underperformance of the second stage?

One would think the first flight was just as uncertain performance-wise. The devil is in the details, though.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 10:45 pm

Well, and it's also a thermal issue because now you have a plume expanding "feet" closer than to the aft end of the stage than designed...hope they have plenty of insulation there! And there was that thermal issue last time on S2...

Very true. Although the radiant heat from the nozzle is also always there.

There will probably be some charring. But it is a 'test flight' after all, and very short.

Rough sketch attached.

Correct, and maybe the heating delta is negligible, but remember that in vacuum the plume expands essentially to infinity, so the plume angle in your sketch will increase to basically vertical...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: PahTo on 12/07/2010 10:53 pm

It occurs to me that this repair has the added benefit of reducing the chances of nozzle contact at staging...
Still more than a meter gone--almost 50% of the length--whew.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/07/2010 10:57 pm
Quoting SPACEFLIGHT NOW -Falcon 9 launch timeline
"T+09:35 Dragon Separation
The Dragon capsule separates from the second stage, leaving behind its unpressurized trunk section, which contains secondary CubeSat payloads."

1- Do they mean the trunk will split from Dragon capsule right at Stage 2 sep. ?
In this case the rest of the in-space operations would be made without the trunk attached to Dragon !
2- If yes, how will they separate the trunk from the second stage once Dragon has gone away ?
3- How will they release the Cube Sats which are said to be in the trunk ?

AIUI:

1- Dragon will separate from the stack after 2nd stage shutdown.
2- The trunk will not separate from the 2nd stage.
3- Out of the open end of the trunk, apparently.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/07/2010 10:58 pm

Correct, and maybe the heating delta is negligible, but remember that in vacuum the plume expands essentially to infinity, so the plume angle in your sketch will increase to basically vertical...

Good point. Darn vacuums...

Just wrap it in duct tape, should work fine  :)

The experts obviously know their thermal model well enough that if they say it's good to go, it's good to go.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: dbhyslop on 12/07/2010 11:03 pm
Quote
SpaceX said the nozzle extension improves the efficiency of its upper-stage Merlin vacuum engine but is not needed to execute the upcoming test flight. Launch time is scheduled between 9:03 a.m. and 12:22 p.m.

The wording of this paragraph in the Sentinal article implies to me that the nozzle is modular and the "extension" is meant to be removable.  If this is the case it is likely that Spacex had already done performance analyses and might have whatever software changes prepared ahead of time as a contingency, even before the discovery of the cracks.

Either way, I'd love to see how they get the thing out!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 12/07/2010 11:03 pm
To my knowledge we have no evidence that SpaceX has done ANYTHING to the Niobium bell.  The statement was that from a performance standpoint they could meet mission requirements with a bell shorter than designed by many feet.   It didn't say that they HAD shortened it or even removed a small piece.

Frankly, I will be extremely surprised if they have done anything mechanical, even drilling a stress relief hole at the end of a crack.  The idea that they would take off the stiffening ring, modify the bell, modify the stiffening ring and reattach it or just discard it, and fly, even if they were to pull the rocket apart to expose the engine, is inconceivable.   

Jim excorciates them for not adhering to procedures, and with good reason, but this would be beyond improper. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: billh on 12/07/2010 11:06 pm
Well, that would make more sense. I'm just astonished that they would make such a large, unplanned modification to the vehicle so quickly and then attempt a launch the next day. I'd be equally astonished that NASA would be comfortable with it.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: billh on 12/07/2010 11:11 pm
Well, Aviation Week reports they really are cutting off the bottom four feet:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awx/2010/12/07/awx_12_07_2010_p0-274994.xml&headline=Falcon%209%20Readies%20For%20Wednesday%20Launch
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2010 11:20 pm
Quote
SpaceX said the nozzle extension improves the efficiency of its upper-stage Merlin vacuum engine but is not needed to execute the upcoming test flight. Launch time is scheduled between 9:03 a.m. and 12:22 p.m.

The wording of this paragraph in the Sentinal article implies to me that the nozzle is modular and the "extension" is meant to be removable.  If this is the case it is likely that Spacex had already done performance analyses and might have whatever software changes prepared ahead of time as a contingency, even before the discovery of the cracks.

Either way, I'd love to see how they get the thing out!

That sounds like the best explanation...that they've done the thermal analysis, etc, without the extension, and thus have already designed and analyzed for the limiting case in which the nozzle extension length goes to zero...But that statement does beg the question, if the extension is "not needed", why not just take it off, and problem solved?

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jongoff on 12/07/2010 11:39 pm
Since I just checked, I thought I would share: Gibraltar is at 36N

Thanks for your info -

Launch Azimuth of 69.7° from KSC/Cape Canaveral corresponds to an orbit of 34.5° inclination.  This launch azimuth takes the Falcon-9/Dragon in a direction north of Bermuda and a subsequent over-flight track over Gibraltar and the Mediterranean makes sense.

Concerning Jay Barbree's question, Europe or Gibraltar are basically the same concerning his main point which was over-flight due to an event of an engine-out late in powered flight and the potential consequences of an uncontrolled descent.

It's still pretty weak sauce.  By the time in F9's flight where it's IIP (Instantaneous Impact Point--the point you would hit if you lost power at any given second) is crossing over any populate area, the IIP is going to be moving so fast that the actual odds of it hurting anyone are ridiculously low.  This isn't having your IIP passing over a densely populated are right as you're doing stage separation or something like that.  This is well into the 2nd stage of flight. 

Part of the launch license that SpaceX filed involves calculating E-sub-c (expected casualties).  That's the expected number of people to be hurt from a given flight.  FAA will not let you fly if your E-sub-c is greater than .00003 (30x10^-6). 

The odds of SpaceX's F9 failing at the exact instant it would take to actually hurt someone in Gibraltar or Northern Africa is vanishingly small, even if you assume a 100% probability of launch failure.  Let's do the math.  Say your IIP is going at say 5km/s (IIP typically moves faster than your actual ground track--at the split second before your perigee gets above ground, your IIP actually is effectively going infinitely fast), and your flight is say 600s long, and the populated area is 50km long with people standing hand in hand along the flight path that whole way so there's a 100% chance of fatalities if the thing fails during that timeframe, you're only looking at 1.6% chance (50km/5km/s=10s, 10s/600s =.016).

Yawn.

~Jon

[Note: the specific numbers like flight duration and IIP velocity and 50km populated area were all total guesstimates pulled out of certain nether regions]
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/07/2010 11:47 pm
SpaceX also gets less money per flight (and per KG of cargo) than Orbital in their CRS contract. This also tends to discredit your SpaceX favoratism theory. Incidentally, I am not saying that there is a favoratism towards Orbital. Orbital negotiated a better deal. That's all there is to it.

Not if their costs are higher.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: R.Simko on 12/07/2010 11:48 pm
This removing 4 ft. from the bell makes me feel like I'm reading a sci-fi novel and if the crew, that is stranded on Mars doesn't make an unorthodox emergency repair in a matter of hours, they will miss their launch window and never make it back home.


 I'll say one thing, SpaceX sure makes it exciting.   I can't wait for SpaceX the movie to come out.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: TheFallen on 12/07/2010 11:50 pm
Glad to see that this launch will be broadcast on NASA TV tomorrow.  No poor-quality streaming this time around... (Presumably)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/07/2010 11:55 pm
Responding to reporters today about changes to the engine bell, Elon Musk had this to say about Falcon:
"She'll make point five past lightspeed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself".
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/07/2010 11:58 pm
Y'all take a lot of things on faith, assuming SpaceX has analyzed this case.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Malderi on 12/08/2010 12:01 am
Responding to reporters today about changes to the engine bell, Elon Musk had this to say about Falcon:
"She'll make point five past lightspeed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself".

The funny part is, I can actually imagine him saying something like that.

Of course, everyone thought they were crazy when they launched an hour after a pad abort. For everyone that thinks what they're doing is crazy, hold your opinions until after it (maybe) blows up. Let's just call it waiting for experimental data.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 12:05 am
Glad to see that this launch will be broadcast on NASA TV tomorrow.  No poor-quality streaming this time around... (Presumably)

Probably point their range cameras down to the SpaceX pad like last time. Hopefully they'll bring some equipment down there and get some good close up footage.

I think they have fixed the web stream though, the test firing on the second day was very good.

I don't think they're crazy for cutting an unnecessary nozzle extension, I don't think they're crazy for launching after pad aborts, I don't think they're crazy for continuing to play with their system until they get a test fire.

I think they're just that good.

The whole system is designed to recover from aborts. The nozzle extension is there for efficiency boosting purposes. If they don't need it for completion of this Demo, why would they go and replace it? Cutting it just is a logical engineering choice when you have time considerations.

Go SpaceX. :D
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 12/08/2010 12:06 am
Let's just call it waiting for experimental data.

Experimenting with taxpayer dollars on a system that will be crucially needed for the future sustaining of the ISS...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 12:06 am
Y'all take a lot of things on faith, assuming SpaceX has analyzed this case.

Well, we're all kind of hampered by lack of firsthand (or even much secondhand) information. All we know is what we're told:

Quote from Av Week: "To fix the problem, engineers cut off the bottom four feet of the nozzle, then ran analysis to assure the engine would perform as expected."

If they say they ran the analysis, I guess I have to choose whether to believe that, or not. Them being a lot smarter than me, I'm kinda believing they did.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim_LAX on 12/08/2010 12:08 am
Does anyone know if the Dragon will splashdown off the coast of Morro Bay California?  That is where the parachute drop test was done last month.  That would be a pleasant drive up the coast from Los Angeles to see the Dragon being towed back to shore.
Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 12:09 am

I think they're just that good.


Some serious koolade guzzling going on.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/08/2010 12:11 am
Does anyone know if the Dragon will splashdown off the coast of Morro Bay California?  That is where the parachute drop test was done last month.  That would be a pleasant drive up the coast from Los Angeles to see the Dragon being towed back to shore.
Thanks in advance.

From the press kit:
"After travelling approximately 50,000 miles, the
Dragon spacecraft is expected to land in the Pacific
Ocean about 500 miles off of the coast of Mexico
approximately three and a half hours after launch."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 12:15 am

If they say they ran the analysis, I guess I have to choose whether to believe that, or not. Them being a lot smarter than me, I'm kinda believing they did.

The issue isn't "an" analysis, it is which ones?

Good system engineering says there is more than one.

Engine performance analysis which inputs into a trajectory analysis.
Control analysis update and maybe a gain adjustment.
Then there are plume and thermo analysis. 

there may be others
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim_LAX on 12/08/2010 12:16 am
500 miles off the coast of Mexico.  And my propeller car is in the shop!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 12:16 am
Some serious koolade guzzling going on.

Eggnog thank you very much. I'll be drinking the tears of the naysayers when they do a completely nominal launch and recovery. :D
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 12:17 am
Some serious koolade guzzling going on.

Eggnog thank you very much. I'll be drinking the tears of the naysayers when they do a completely nominal launch and recovery. :D

A blind squirrel gets the nut sometimes.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 12:24 am
A blind squirrel gets the nut sometimes.

How many flights will it take before you don't consider SpaceX a "blind squirrel"?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/08/2010 12:25 am
Jim, all this joking aside, What's really going on here. Could you put yourself into the minds of Spacex engineers and tell us why they are just not waiting for the new bell to arrive. To me, it seems extremely risky. How do we know that guidance will not be affected? I'd like to know from you what you think.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Cinder on 12/08/2010 12:29 am
A blind squirrel gets the nut sometimes.

How many flights will it take before you don't consider SpaceX a "blind squirrel"?
Proverbial squirrel might've been you, not SpaceX. 
Incorrectness of this guess is all my responsibility.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/08/2010 12:30 am
What's going here? Not all of the pictures (different days, different times of day?) show this umbilical like this, but what gives?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 12/08/2010 12:30 am
Some serious koolade guzzling going on.

Eggnog thank you very much. I'll be drinking the tears of the naysayers when they do a completely nominal launch and recovery. :D

A blind squirrel gets the nut sometimes.

Not only that, the trick isn't "just" (!!) getting flight 2 to be successful (with the undivided attention of the entire enterprise, excited and willing to bust butt)

It is in making flights way down the road successful (when the flight rate is high,  there are waves of flight stages going through processing flow, and the once-eager-to-work-unlimited-OT crews are now burnt out and exhausted)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 12:31 am
A blind squirrel gets the nut sometimes.

How many flights will it take before you don't consider SpaceX a "blind squirrel"?

When their success rate is above 90%
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 12:34 am

If they say they ran the analysis, I guess I have to choose whether to believe that, or not. Them being a lot smarter than me, I'm kinda believing they did.

The issue isn't "an" analysis, it is which ones?

Good system engineering says there is more than one.

Engine performance analysis which inputs into a trajectory analysis.
Control analysis update and maybe a gain adjustment.
Then there are plume and thermo analysis. 

there may be others


Yes, I think we all understand that there is more than one "analysis" to be done. The singular of the word "analysis" was from one sentence in Av Week for consumption of the general public. Pretty sure SpaceX doesn't need me to tell them which analyses (plural) to do.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/08/2010 12:34 am
What's going here? Not all of the pictures (different days, different times of day?) show this umbilical like this, but what gives?

Looks like wind shear to me ...lol

(wind blowing a duct around)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 12:35 am
What's going here? Not all of the pictures (different days, different times of day?) show this umbilical like this, but what gives?

I would look for the other half on the erector

And it is connected here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667114#msg667114

edit

and it is hanging on the erector on the third pic.

This would have be a big deal for a regular spacecraft to be without ECS.  Especially considering the high winds of the last few days.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 12:38 am
When their success rate is above 90%

Falcon 9 success rate is 100%.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 12/08/2010 12:39 am
When their success rate is above 90%

Falcon 9 success rate is 100%.

I would add "and the sample size is > 5".  E.g. five straight or 9 of 10.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 12:41 am
When their success rate is above 90%

Falcon 9 success rate is 100%.

Spacex rate is not 100%
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/08/2010 12:42 am
A blind squirrel gets the nut sometimes.

How many flights will it take before you don't consider SpaceX a "blind squirrel"?

When their success rate is above 90%

Are you including all the failures up to now?  Do you consider Falcon 9 flight one a failure or a success?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 12/08/2010 12:44 am
Are you including all the failures up to now?  Do you consider Falcon 9 flight one a failure or a success?

He is correctly counting Falcon 1 flights as SpaceX launch attempts.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chandonn on 12/08/2010 12:46 am
A blind squirrel gets the nut sometimes.

How many flights will it take before you don't consider SpaceX a "blind squirrel"?

Now, now.  Jim's right.  They're just a bunch of kids playing with their backyard rockets...  They don't have a clue what they're doing.  Put the Kool-Aid away...  I seem to remember him saying they wouldn't get to orbit... after Falcon 1 flight 4, in fact...

Even a rocket expert is sometimes proven wrong.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tigerade on 12/08/2010 12:48 am
A blind squirrel gets the nut sometimes.

How many flights will it take before you don't consider SpaceX a "blind squirrel"?

When their success rate is above 90%

Logically, I agree with you.  Above 90% would be reason to be confident technically, which would be 20-30+ successful launches to make up for the first 3 F1 flights (according to my non-mathematical guess work).  There is nothing wrong with your thinking on a logical and technical level.  However, do you really want to wait years until you are willing to cheer for this team of people of SpaceX, who are clearly working their butts off to be successful?  It's more of an emotional issue.  People love the underdog.  I enjoy seeing them try and accomplish these enormous challenges, and they seem to have the will and heart to do it.  You have to remember to make sense of things on an emotional level.  If they were complacent, lazy, or incompetent, then I would be on the same boat with you.  However, I see no evidence of any.  They are giving it their best.  Regardless of the results of this next launch, I think SpaceX is going places.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 12:50 am
I am just trying to counter balance the unwarranted and blind worship of all things Spacex.  I call a spade a spade.  I support Spacex but with tempered enthusiasm.

I was in the same boat at one time, supporting the first real commercial space company, Spacehab. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/08/2010 12:52 am
Still waiting for SpaceX to confirm tomorrow is on (should be).

Very long thread, remember people are looking for information so post if it's useful, not because it's fun to. And to the new people, Jim is probably the most qualified person you could ever wish to speak with on these things.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 12/08/2010 12:52 am
Now, now.  Jim's right.  They're just a bunch of kids playing with their backyard rockets...  They don't have a clue what they're doing.  Put the Kool-Aid away...  I seem to remember him saying they wouldn't get to orbit... after Falcon 1 flight 4, in fact...

Even a rocket expert is sometimes proven wrong.

He's right.

F1 Flight 1 > Failure
F1 Flight 2 > Failure
F1 Flight 3 > Failure
F1 Flight 4 > Success*  (Dummy payload)
F1 Flight 5 > Success

F9 Flight 1 > Success * (Couldn't re-start 2nd stage, steering failure on 2nd stage engine).

By my count they're no better than 50% launch success rate at present.

What is racking up is flight heritage on the Merlin 1 series engine.  F9 Flight 1 more than doubled the runtime on the engine, and F9 flight 2 will again nearly double the runtime on the engine.

If there is no problem with the Merlins on F9 Flight 2, there will be a significant amount of runtime on the design- and that is at least very promising.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: llo2015 on 12/08/2010 12:55 am
Since I just checked, I thought I would share: Gibraltar is at 36N

Thanks for your info -

Launch Azimuth of 69.7° from KSC/Cape Canaveral corresponds to an orbit of 34.5° inclination.  This launch azimuth takes the Falcon-9/Dragon in a direction north of Bermuda and a subsequent over-flight track over Gibraltar and the Mediterranean makes sense.

Concerning Jay Barbree's question, Europe or Gibraltar are basically the same concerning his main point which was over-flight due to an event of an engine-out late in powered flight and the potential consequences of an uncontrolled descent.

It's still pretty weak sauce.  By the time in F9's flight where it's IIP (Instantaneous Impact Point--the point you would hit if you lost power at any given second) is crossing over any populate area, the IIP is going to be moving so fast that the actual odds of it hurting anyone are ridiculously low.  This isn't having your IIP passing over a densely populated are right as you're doing stage separation or something like that.  This is well into the 2nd stage of flight. 

Part of the launch license that SpaceX filed involves calculating E-sub-c (expected casualties).  That's the expected number of people to be hurt from a given flight.  FAA will not let you fly if your E-sub-c is greater than .00003 (30x10^-6). 

The odds of SpaceX's F9 failing at the exact instant it would take to actually hurt someone in Gibraltar or Northern Africa is vanishingly small, even if you assume a 100% probability of launch failure.  Let's do the math.  Say your IIP is going at say 5km/s (IIP typically moves faster than your actual ground track--at the split second before your perigee gets above ground, your IIP actually is effectively going infinitely fast), and your flight is say 600s long, and the populated area is 50km long with people standing hand in hand along the flight path that whole way so there's a 100% chance of fatalities if the thing fails during that timeframe, you're only looking at 1.6% chance (50km/5km/s=10s, 10s/600s =.016).

Yawn.

~Jon

[Note: the specific numbers like flight duration and IIP velocity and 50km populated area were all total guesstimates pulled out of certain nether regions]

The nominal launch track and orbital insertion for a Falcon-9/Dragon launch occurs over the open Atlantic about 900 nautical miles from Cape Canaveral.  The over-flight issues only involves the case of a late in powered flight second stage engine-out event. 

In my view, the SpaceX representative should have told Jay that if that Falcon-9 missed orbital velocity, both the second stage and Dragon capsule could be maneuvered to a safe disposal in the Atlantic
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 12:56 am
I never disagreed with Jim about process. I explicitly asked my questions because I wanted to know from the guys who know things just where the process could've broken down (with regards to extension nozzle QC). Unfortunately I didn't get any solid answers in that respect.

See you guys in the live thread (and sorry for the button pushing about 100% Falcon 9 success, I'm not stupid, I know that's not a relevant sample size, heh). :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 12:59 am
I am just trying to counter balance the unwarranted and blind worship of all things Spacex.  I call a spade a spade.  I support Spacex but with tempered enthusiasm.

I was in the same boat at one time, supporting the first real commercial space company, Spacehab. 

It seems to me that the only "blind worship" I've seen on this forum is from people who haven't been in the business and don't have firsthand knowledge of how hard it is.

It seems that the people on this forum who have been in the business are, in fact, the ones with "tempered enthusiasm." They know it's not easy, there are going to be growing pains and some failures, but they respect and admire what SpaceX has been able to do, and what they may be poised to accomplish.

Can't speak for everyone, but that's how it looks to me.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 12/08/2010 01:09 am
I'm not in the business but was wondering whether 'test flights' are counted when considering a company's launch success/failure statistics.  Seems to me that flights specifically identified as test flights shouldn't be considered part of the launch statistics or at least a disclaimer acknowledging the basis behind the statistic.
By that measure:
F1 has a 50% success rate based on 1 failed satellite launch and 1 successful.
F9 has no record at this point since flight 1 was clearly a test, and the COTS flights are demo's or tests to prove up the system by any other name.
Cheers.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 01:13 am
I'm not in the business but was wondering whether 'test flights' are counted when considering a company's launch success/failure statistics.  Seems to me that flights specifically identified as test flights shouldn't be considered part of the launch statistics or at least a disclaimer acknowledging the basis behind the statistic.
By that measure:
F1 has a 50% success rate based on 1 failed satellite launch and 1 successful.
F9 has no record at this point since flight 1 was clearly a test, and the COTS flights are demo's or tests to prove up the system by any other name.
Cheers.

Depends on whether you're a "blind worshiper" or a "tempered enthusiast."  ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 12/08/2010 01:21 am
I'm not in the business but was wondering whether 'test flights' are counted when considering a company's launch success/failure statistics.  Seems to me that flights specifically identified as test flights shouldn't be considered part of the launch statistics or at least a disclaimer acknowledging the basis behind the statistic.
By that measure:
F1 has a 50% success rate based on 1 failed satellite launch and 1 successful.
F9 has no record at this point since flight 1 was clearly a test, and the COTS flights are demo's or tests to prove up the system by any other name.
Cheers.

Depends on whether you're a "blind worshiper" or a "tempered enthusiast."  ;)

Originally blind enthusiast turned to tempered enthusiast due to some considered study and also info' on this site.
That said, have to admire Musk for putting his money where his mouth is (along with others including NASA whom he has credited on several occasions), when he could have taken his earnings and retired to the Bahama's or wherever.

That said, 12 months should prove one way or another.  He's either got a system that works or can be made to work or he hasn't.  In the meantime, it's makes for interesting viewing.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tigerade on 12/08/2010 01:22 am
I am just trying to counter balance the unwarranted and blind worship of all things Spacex.  I call a spade a spade.  I support Spacex but with tempered enthusiasm.

I was in the same boat at one time, supporting the first real commercial space company, Spacehab. 

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with a healthy dose of skepticism.  However I think your view pushes towards being a bit scrooge-ish.  I mean, yeah you are right on a technical level.  But the people at SpaceX are human beings, and so are we.  It's not like they are sitting around a camp fire saying "Hey let's launch a space rocket someday".  They got a rocket, they got a space capsule, they got the systems to make it happen.  They've put millions of dollars into their investment, putting their money where their mouth is.  I've heard about employees there staying for long overtime after dark.  They are working hard.  That's what's warranted... the idea that hard work and dedication can accomplish something.  I would not be so quick to splash a bucket of cold water on their faces.  I would need to see a few more failures to give them a grim reality check.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 01:23 am

In my view, the SpaceX representative should have told Jay that if that Falcon-9 missed orbital velocity, both the second stage and Dragon capsule could be maneuvered to a safe disposal in the Atlantic


There is no "maneuvering".  Launch vehicle are autonomous, they are not controlled from the ground, except for one command. And "command" may not affect the capsule, which would continue in its ballistic trajectory.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 01:26 am
My main point is not that they will or not have successful flights but that they won't be any different than others in the same field. Their costs/prices will be similar.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/08/2010 01:29 am
I'm not in the business but was wondering whether 'test flights' are counted when considering a company's launch success/failure statistics.  Seems to me that flights specifically identified as test flights shouldn't be considered part of the launch statistics or at least a disclaimer acknowledging the basis behind the statistic.
By that measure:
F1 has a 50% success rate based on 1 failed satellite launch and 1 successful.
F9 has no record at this point since flight 1 was clearly a test, and the COTS flights are demo's or tests to prove up the system by any other name.
Cheers.
I've been in conversations regarding this, but... a conservative approach is to include ALL launches.

Another approach might be to just count the last "n" flights, where "n" is a large number such that "one more failure" won't make a big deal in your overall failure rate (or basically assume that the next flight will fail). So, by that metric, SpaceX would need to hit AT LEAST the next 7 launches with no failure in order to hit Jim's 90% success rate. But that isn't a very large sample size. I would say a sample size of 20 is probably better, and then we're not too far away from the conservative metric, which says SpaceX needs to hit the next 24 launches successfully to be considered 90% successful.

*shrug* SpaceX will need many more successful launches for us to call them anything resembling reliable (of course, 90% reliability... "one nine"... would be unacceptable in almost any other industry, and won't be terribly acceptable even in this industry, especially for crew and strategic payloads).

Of course, if SRBs are considered 100% reliable, then so is SpaceX!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/08/2010 01:31 am
It seems to me that the only "blind worship" I've seen on this forum is from people who haven't been in the business and don't have firsthand knowledge of how hard it is.

It seems that the people on this forum who have been in the business are, in fact, the ones with "tempered enthusiasm." They know it's not easy, there are going to be growing pains and some failures, but they respect and admire what SpaceX has been able to do, and what they may be poised to accomplish.

Can't speak for everyone, but that's how it looks to me.

That's a pretty good description of how I view SpaceX, personally.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 01:36 am
My main point is not that they will or not have successful flights but that they won't be any different than others in the same field. Their costs/prices will be similar.

There are already 30 launches on their manifest that are not "similar costs/prices."  ::)

What you are suggesting is that SpaceX is going to go bankrupt.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: telomerase99 on 12/08/2010 01:46 am
Yahoo news quotes Gwynne Shotwell as saying that the launch is no earlier than Thursday as of a few hours ago.

If that is the case, why is everyone saying that the launch is tommorrow? Is it just out of date information?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Bubbinski on 12/08/2010 01:48 am
I sure hope it's tomorrow!  I have the day off. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: robertross on 12/08/2010 01:49 am
Yahoo news quotes Gwynne Shotwell as saying that the launch is no earlier than Thursday as of a few hours ago.

If that is the case, why is everyone saying that the launch is tommorrow? Is it just out of date information?

Read back a bit. NASA was apparently jumping the gun a bit, but a SpaceX rep tried to set things straight(er). But if that (your news) was a few hours ago, then in may be stale.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 01:49 am
telomerase99, no early than launch is Wednesday, which NASA has been repeating. SpaceX announced that things looked good but that they wouldn't know until 9:00 PM EST, which was about 50 minutes ago. We're just waiting for SpaceX to make the official statement. Could be any minute now.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 01:56 am

There are already 30 launches on their manifest that are not "similar costs/prices." 


Not all real launches.  Wait until they launch a real spacecraft and not Tang, tee shirts and toilet paper or multiple spacecraft
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: telomerase99 on 12/08/2010 02:00 am
Thanks! I can't wait for verification from Chris that it is tomorrow. Arizona is two hours behind EST right?

I hope it launches before I have to go to work!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: llo2015 on 12/08/2010 02:01 am

In my view, the SpaceX representative should have told Jay that if that Falcon-9 missed orbital velocity, both the second stage and Dragon capsule could be maneuvered to a safe disposal in the Atlantic


There is no "maneuvering".  Launch vehicle are autonomous, they are not controlled from the ground, except for one command. And "command" may not affect the capsule, which would continue in its ballistic trajectory.

The Dragon capsule will have a propellant load capable of 300 Delta-V at a minimum.  The flight control of the Dragon capsule's trajectory after engine-out (last minute of powered flight about 900 nm downrange) should adjust the reentry angle such that Dragon will finish in the Atlantic. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Malderi on 12/08/2010 02:02 am
Jim, I'm pretty sure that Dragon, whatever is actually inside, counts as a real spacecraft.

Quote
Experimenting with taxpayer dollars on a system that will be crucially needed for the future sustaining of the ISS...

True. The extreme alternative - months of exhaustive analysis - could be done as well. I tend to think that the "right" place to be is somewhere in the middle, when it comes to overly heavy processes. I consider NASA and SpaceX to be bounding the problem, and will hopefully converge on a solution. :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChefPat on 12/08/2010 02:06 am
Thanks! I can't wait for verification from Chris that it is tomorrow. Arizona is two hours behind EST right?

I hope it launches before I have to go to work!
3 hours, launch window opens at 6:03 am Phoenix time.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tigerade on 12/08/2010 02:08 am
Spaceflightnow is saying we are go for launch!!!!

Quote
GO FOR LAUNCH. Officials have approved plans to launch the Falcon 9 rocket tomorrow morning. The launch window opens at 9 a.m. EST and closes at 12:22 p.m. EST (1400-1722 GMT).
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/08/2010 02:16 am
So what are the chances that like all previous flights, SpaceX will have a camera pointing down at the nozzle and we will get to see the handy work (I remain skeptical) and how many feet of nozzle are actually removed first hand?

I think it is pretty good. That has been SpaceX's typical flight profile, live video of staging and the second stage nozzle (Except Falcon 1 flight One that never made it to staging and Falcon 1 flight three had the transmission cut faster than you can stage a Falcon).

Also, different environment but, SpaceX lacks an altitude chamber, so all test firings of Vac Merlin have been without the full nozzle. That could be the thermal rational for saying a truncated nozzle is ok.

Time for some cool-aid and off to bed. Go SpaceX...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: DaveS on 12/08/2010 02:18 am
Spaceflightnow is saying we are go for launch!!!!

Quote
GO FOR LAUNCH. Officials have approved plans to launch the Falcon 9 rocket tomorrow morning. The launch window opens at 9 a.m. EST and closes at 12:22 p.m. EST (1400-1722 GMT).
That's based on a single NASA press release earlier this afternoon. There's no official SpaceX word yet from the 9 pm EST status point. I also refer you to SpaceX_MS post eariler today: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667600#msg667600
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Bubbinski on 12/08/2010 02:19 am

3 hours, launch window opens at 6:03 am Phoenix time.

Actually it would be 7:03 am Phoenix time as Arizona is now on Mountain Standard Time (same time as Salt Lake from Nov to Mar) and the rest of the country is off daylight savings.  I remember having to adjust to this when I lived in Arizona and daylight savings ended every year and mentally calculating when I could watch shuttle launches on CNN in the pre-Net era.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/08/2010 02:29 am
Keeping this thread active just to say you are watching twitter doesn't really help the situation...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChefPat on 12/08/2010 02:32 am

Actually it would be 7:03 am Phoenix time as Arizona is now on Mountain Standard Time (same time as Salt Lake from Nov to Mar) and the rest of the country is off daylight savings.
You're quite right, I wasn't taking DST into account. 2 hours differance not 3.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 12/08/2010 02:33 am
Keeping this thread active just to say you are watching twitter doesn't really help the situation...

relevant question: do you have any info on the weather outlook for the Launch Window and the Splash Down area ?

Cheers

Gramps,

drinking the SpaceX Wassail ;-)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/08/2010 02:35 am
COLD. Well, by Florida standards, it's 19 where I am! Anyways 30's in the morning with wind chills in the 20's. Light wind, partly cloudy skies, warming to near 50 by lunchtime. I'm not aware of their rules regarding the chill.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 02:42 am
Spaceflightnow is saying we are go for launch!!!!

Quote
GO FOR LAUNCH. Officials have approved plans to launch the Falcon 9 rocket tomorrow morning. The launch window opens at 9 a.m. EST and closes at 12:22 p.m. EST (1400-1722 GMT).
That's based on a single NASA press release earlier this afternoon. There's no official SpaceX word yet from the 9 pm EST status point. I also refer you to SpaceX_MS post eariler today: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667600#msg667600

DaveS appears to be correct, that there's been no word from SpaceX at the 9 pm status point. Looks like those guys/gals are in for a long night...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: AdamH on 12/08/2010 02:44 am
At this point I am going make the guess that they may have meant 9am EST instead of pm.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tigerade on 12/08/2010 02:46 am
At this point I am going make the guess that they may have meant 9am EST instead of pm.

I was thinking the same thing, however it seems strange that they would decide on launching at 9AM. 

"Hey everybody!  We're launching in 15 mins!  Just wanted to let you know ahead of time".   ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: telomerase99 on 12/08/2010 02:48 am

Actually it would be 7:03 am Phoenix time as Arizona is now on Mountain Standard Time (same time as Salt Lake from Nov to Mar) and the rest of the country is off daylight savings.
You're quite right, I wasn't taking DST into account. 2 hours differance not 3.

Thats what I was confused about, thanks to you two for figuring it out!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 02:49 am
At this point I am going make the guess that they may have meant 9am EST instead of pm.

No, the launch window opens at 9 am and they need to be fueling, etc, before then. I think they did intend to confirm by 9 pm tonight, but sometimes the problem doesn't cooperate with your schedule.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: AdamH on 12/08/2010 02:54 am
No, the launch window opens at 9 am and they need to be fueling, etc, before then. I think they did intend to confirm by 9 pm tonight, but sometimes the problem doesn't cooperate with your schedule.
True. Well either way I sure won't be missing it ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: AdamH on 12/08/2010 03:04 am
SpaceXer Tweet: "Still looks good for tomorrow. Get some sleep, it's going to be an early morning!!"

Looks like tomorrow is a go!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: sdsds on 12/08/2010 03:07 am
I'm betting SpaceX has prior analysis of exactly this case, i.e. flying mvac without the aft section of the nozzle extension.  They would have done this as a "trade study" to assess the cost/benefit of that section of the nozzle.  Indeed, they might choose to fly Falcon 9 in the "short extension" configuration simply as a cost savings measure on flights (like this one) that don't need the extra efficiency that section of the nozzle provides.

Has someone already calculated the expected reduction in Isp?  The expected reduction in mass?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/08/2010 03:08 am
It's processes and systems engineering that guarantee success. Read The Secret of Apollo. Elon has given speeches on his belief that systems engineering is an artifact of the DoD. Until they adopt that or tell me they have some other "secret" I won't risk my DNA or my irreplaceable payload with them.

I'm enjoying this debate, though.  As they say, where you stand depends on where you sit.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 03:19 am

The Dragon capsule will have a propellant load capable of 300 Delta-V at a minimum.  The flight control of the Dragon capsule's trajectory after engine-out (last minute of powered flight about 900 nm downrange) should adjust the reentry angle such that Dragon will finish in the Atlantic. 

What says the Dragon is active during ascent, most spacecraft aren't.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 03:20 am
1.   If the Demo's go as well as us "enthused SpaceX fans" their manifest is expected to explode.

2.  The costs will likely go up a bit but they will not be "similar" to other launch providers.

You have no proof of the #1 and you are wrong about #2, their costs are getting close
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 03:22 am
Jim, I'm pretty sure that Dragon, whatever is actually inside, counts as a real spacecraft.

No, it is not the paying customer
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/08/2010 03:24 am
It's processes and systems engineering that guarantee success. Read The Secret of Apollo. Elon has given speeches on his belief that systems engineering is an artifact of the DoD. Until they adopt that or tell me they have some other "secret" I won't risk my DNA or my irreplaceable payload with them.

I'm enjoying this debate, though.  As they say, where you stand depends on where you sit.
Very interesting topic to me, actually. Would you bother explaining more your thoughts on this, perhaps on another thread?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jongoff on 12/08/2010 03:26 am
It's processes and systems engineering that guarantee success. Read The Secret of Apollo. Elon has given speeches on his belief that systems engineering is an artifact of the DoD. Until they adopt that or tell me they have some other "secret" I won't risk my DNA or my irreplaceable payload with them.

I'm enjoying this debate, though.  As they say, where you stand depends on where you sit.

While I actually agree with you that appropriately applied System Engineering can make a huge difference...I think that far too often Systems Engineering is just buzzword engineering in many aerospace circles.  I've seen it used well, but in spite of probably having more systems engineers per square inch at NASA than anywhere else in the planet, what else could you call the CxP debacles (and HEFT, and ESAS, etc) than total System Engineering snafus of the first degree.

I think that's part of the unfortunate aversion to appropriate systems engineering in the commercial space world.  When you see wunderkinden like Mike Griffin giving lectures on "How to Fix Systems Engineering" at JSC, with no sense of the irony involved, it tends to initiate baby-bathwater-tossing-reflexes on many peoples' parts.

Once again, not opposed to Systems Engineering, just tend to cringe whenever I hear that some NASA or DoD contractor lists "Systems Engineering" as their key area of core competence...

~Jon
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jongoff on 12/08/2010 03:28 am

The Dragon capsule will have a propellant load capable of 300 Delta-V at a minimum.  The flight control of the Dragon capsule's trajectory after engine-out (last minute of powered flight about 900 nm downrange) should adjust the reentry angle such that Dragon will finish in the Atlantic. 

What says the Dragon is active during ascent, most spacecraft aren't.

Yeah, while it could be possible to do something like that, doing it 100% autonomously, and being able to handle all necessary aborts would take a *lot* of mission specific engineering...I'm with Jim, I just don't think it's realistic.

Now, if you have a pilot on board, it's quite a bit easier to have some real-time retargetting for safety purposes.  But trying to predict every single possible abort mode for every flight trajectory you use in advance?  Very non-trivial.  And in some ways likely to make things less reliable--the more complex your GN&C system gets, the more likely you'll end up needing that abort capability.

~Jon
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 03:34 am
What's going here? Not all of the pictures (different days, different times of day?) show this umbilical like this, but what gives?

Nobody is running with this?  Something is disconnected.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667684#msg667684
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Mapperuo on 12/08/2010 03:46 am
What's going here? Not all of the pictures (different days, different times of day?) show this umbilical like this, but what gives?

Nobody is running with this?  Something is disconnected.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667684#msg667684

Had to go seaching through the NASA gallery, seems the photos when its disconnected are from the 3rd Dec (Abort day) but on the 4th Dec photos it's connected just fine. (Successful 2sec test day)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/08/2010 03:46 am
Jim, if I'm reading right you are saying that Dragon is not a spacecraft because it's not a paid for payload. That's crazy. Sorry
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Malderi on 12/08/2010 03:48 am
Jim, I'm pretty sure that Dragon, whatever is actually inside, counts as a real spacecraft.

No, it is not the paying customer

Ah, if that was your rationale, you should've said so. I agree that interfacing with an external organization and interfaces will be a real test. Almost all of their Falcon 1 launches had those, though, whether TacSATs or RazakSATs or whatever, so they've had at least some experience with doing that.

It's probably not the level of engineering/analysis that goes into billion-dollar NRO recon birds, but I don't think SpaceX is going for that market anyways.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Pedantic Twit on 12/08/2010 03:49 am
What's going here? Not all of the pictures (different days, different times of day?) show this umbilical like this, but what gives?

Nobody is running with this?  Something is disconnected.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667684#msg667684

Had to go seaching through the NASA gallery, seems the photos when its disconnected are from the 3rd Dec (Abort day) but on the 4th Dec photos it's connected just fine. (Successful 2sec test day)

Here's the links for the curious.

Disconnected (3rd Dec):
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49712
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49713
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49715
Connected (4th Dec):
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49707
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49708
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49709
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 12/08/2010 03:52 am
Once again, not opposed to Systems Engineering, just tend to cringe whenever I hear that some NASA or DoD contractor lists "Systems Engineering" as their key area of core competence...

I think, though, that you'd have to agree that the only thing worse than having too many systems engineers is... not having enough. ??

Lets hope that the launch goes well, although I'm not drinking any kool-aid, I am hoping to see SpaceX succeed.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/08/2010 03:53 am
Going back to the nozzle...

Since thermal concerns were mentioned, remember that radiative heating was implicated in the failure of the roll control actuator on flight one. SpaceX says they've fixed the issue, but increased radiative heating could affect the fix.

However, the heat transfer analysis is not simple. The nozzle extension clearly (from past launch videos) gets very hot. It gains heat from the plume via both radiation and convection. It then radiates all of that heat with a high emissivity.

The unconstrained plume has only radiation to heat the rocket by, and while the angle of view effectively subtends infinity, it does not maintain its temperature that far. It also, as a diffuse gas rather than a sheet of metal, does not have the same emissivity.

So between the plume being exposed closer or there being less nozzle to radiate, I don't know where the total heating of the 2nd stage ends up.

And as for SpaceX's analysis - I suspect they analyzed resulting ISP and delta-V, but didn't go as far as heat transfer.


Anyways - shortened nozzle should be noticeable in the 2nd stage firing video.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 04:00 am
And speaking of the nozzle again, this bit from the SpaceX Facebook page confirms that it was in fact the photos taken at "closeout" that showed the cracks, not photos from earlier build/inspection at the factory:

Quote: "@Muttley, Ben is correct, we take closeout photos as part of our final review process and the engineers want to take a look at the 2nd stage nozzle."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/08/2010 04:10 am
Going back to the nozzle...

Since thermal concerns were mentioned, remember that radiative heating was implicated in the failure of the roll control actuator on flight one. SpaceX says they've fixed the issue, but increased radiative heating could affect the fix.

However, the heat transfer analysis is not simple. The nozzle extension clearly (from past launch videos) gets very hot. It gains heat from the plume via both radiation and convection. It then radiates all of that heat with a high emissivity.

The unconstrained plume has only radiation to heat the rocket by, and while the angle of view effectively subtends infinity, it does not maintain its temperature that far. It also, as a diffuse gas rather than a sheet of metal, does not have the same emissivity.

So between the plume being exposed closer or there being less nozzle to radiate, I don't know where the total heating of the 2nd stage ends up.

And as for SpaceX's analysis - I suspect they analyzed resulting ISP and delta-V, but didn't go as far as heat transfer.

AIUI, the S2 roll actuator anomaly on F9 flight 1 was caused by the opposite problem: a cold GOX vent impinging on the actuator and chilling by convection the RP-1 hydraulic fluid in the actuator until it froze or gelled stuck. SpaceX has responded to the problem by relocating the vent away from the actuator. They may also have added some insulation around the actuator (not sure).

As for the thermal environment: if we're talking about it here, then SpaceX has surely also thought about it come up with some sort of answer. It's inconceivable that they would just shrug their shoulders and hope for the best. Note that MVac is ground-tested without the nozzle extension, so they must already have the thermal data on that configuration.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 04:10 am
You have no proof of the #1 and you are wrong about #2, their costs are getting close

#1 is what they say.

#2 is fact for anyone capable of 3rd grade math.

Arianespace and ESA CRS is $62k / kg.

Orbital with Tarus II and Cygnus is $88k / kg.

SpaceX with Falcon 9 and Dragon is $22k / kg.

The costs are substantially lower and that is still including an ISS resupply premium. In reality SpaceX is pricing, on their site, $11k / kg for GTO, you can do the math on the other options, but no one comes close.

Name one company that is "priced similarly."

SpaceX already is the lowest cost supplier with 30 launches on their manifest. If this wasn't viable, if they wrongly priced 5 years worth of launches, then clearly they will go bankrupt. Arguing for their pricing being wrong is effectively arguing that.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 04:14 am
Going back to the nozzle...

Since thermal concerns were mentioned, remember that radiative heating was implicated in the failure of the roll control actuator on flight one. SpaceX says they've fixed the issue, but increased radiative heating could affect the fix.

However, the heat transfer analysis is not simple. The nozzle extension clearly (from past launch videos) gets very hot. It gains heat from the plume via both radiation and convection. It then radiates all of that heat with a high emissivity.

The unconstrained plume has only radiation to heat the rocket by, and while the angle of view effectively subtends infinity, it does not maintain its temperature that far. It also, as a diffuse gas rather than a sheet of metal, does not have the same emissivity.

So between the plume being exposed closer or there being less nozzle to radiate, I don't know where the total heating of the 2nd stage ends up.

And as for SpaceX's analysis - I suspect they analyzed resulting ISP and delta-V, but didn't go as far as heat transfer.


Anyways - shortened nozzle should be noticeable in the 2nd stage firing video.

Yes, the thermal effect was my first concern as well, but I can't imagine that their analysis did NOT go as far as heat transfer, as you say. THAT would definitely be "systems engineering" failure, IMO. A previous post speculated that they've already done the analysis for vacuum without the extension (which they've said they don't "need"), which would represent a more severe heating case, and therefore they've already bounded the problem. That would seem to make sense, and would explain why they're apparently comfortable going this route.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: sdsds on 12/08/2010 04:16 am
Going back to the nozzle...
[...]
I suspect they analyzed resulting ISP and delta-V, but didn't go as far as heat transfer.

It's processes and systems engineering that guarantee success. [...] Until they adopt that or tell me they have some other "secret" I won't risk my DNA or my irreplaceable payload with them.

I suspect SpaceX has computer models and sufficient computational resources to run -- as many times as they like with as many variations as they can imagine -- complete simulations of an entire flight.  For the first stage that includes atmospheric, mechanical, thermal, and vibro-acoustic dynamics.  For the second stage, it includes all of those that still apply outside the atmosphere, plus solar effects and anything else known to be of importance in that flight regime. 

If they had that, then they could try out design variations (in the simulator) whenever they thought of them and quickly determine if they're broken.  Do you believe heavy reliance on simulation like that could be the "secret" that lets them avoid endless up-front systems engineering cycles?  Would it make their current behavior as regards the "short extension" mvac appear rational?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 04:24 am

I suspect SpaceX has computer models and sufficient computational resources to run -- as many times as they like with as many variations as they can imagine -- complete simulations of an entire flight.  For the first stage that includes atmospheric, mechanical, thermal, and vibro-acoustic dynamics.  For the second stage, it includes all of those that still apply outside the atmosphere, plus solar effects and anything else known to be of importance in that flight regime. 

If they had that, then they could try out design variations (in the simulator) whenever they thought of them and quickly determine if they're broken.  Do you believe heavy reliance on simulation like that could be the "secret" that lets them avoid endless up-front systems engineering cycles?  Would it make their current behavior as regards the "short extension" mvac appear rational?

No, I think butters has it correct:

Quote: "Note that MVac is ground-tested without the nozzle extension, so they must already have the thermal data on that configuration. "
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: blazotron on 12/08/2010 04:39 am
It's surprising how many people here seem to think SpaceX wouldn't have done analyses on performance, trajectory, stability and control, thermal issues, structural issues, etc.  Much of the computation and analysis infrastructure (models, meshes, etc) is presumably already in place or easily modified from analyses that were certainly performed for the nominal nozzle configuration.  Based on these results, either new computations could be performed or where large margins exist perhaps scaling or estimates are enough to show that the new configuration is well within safe limits.  No doubt a substantial amount of thermal analysis was done for the second stage roll anomaly investigation.

People seem to forget that while the company has a substantial fraction of (talented) young employees, it also a significant number of experts from Boeing, NGC, TRW, Rocketdyne, Aerojet, NASA, etc, very much like NASA 50 years ago.  It's not like these people just forgot how "things are done" when they left their respective positions to go to SpaceX.  It's likely that they decided that wanted to do some things differently, but you can't get a Falcon 9 to orbit without a great deal of analysis and test.  None of this means they won't get things wrong in the future (they can and have in the past), perhaps even this very issue, but it would make very little sense to delay the launch for weeks to perform additional testing on Dragon and then blindly cut off the end of the nozzle extension unless they were very confident of the root cause and the high probability of success in the new configuration. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/08/2010 04:52 am
Blazo, I will be rightly impressed if SpaceX can put intuition back in its deserved place in space (systems?) engineering.  I'm just saying there are lots of forces (or maybe just inertia) who think it doesn't work.  I hope (since I lack the evidence to claim) that SpaceX knows its system well enough that its intuition is infallible.

Edit: and still, people are claiming hopes and beliefs on things for which they lack evidence.  I shiver at that.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jongoff on 12/08/2010 04:59 am
I think, though, that you'd have to agree that the only thing worse than having too many systems engineers is... not having enough. ??

I think so...not sure.  If you take small enough steps, and keep the cost of failure or rework low enough though you can compensate a lot more for the latter.  So long as you have other engineers who are good in their technical areas.  To a poin.....yeah I don't really know.

~Jon
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 12/08/2010 04:59 am
What's going here? Not all of the pictures (different days, different times of day?) show this umbilical like this, but what gives?
Nobody is running with this?  Something is disconnected.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667684#msg667684

The picture looks to me like that item is ducting for conditioned air being fed to the dragon.  It seems really odd that the air supply would be designed to separate in the middle like that instead of pulling off at the dragon.

I can't imagine that the dragon side of that connection is designed to come off early in flight like a thruster cover... 

It also wouldn't make sense to have it as just an unused mock up as I'd assume that the dragon would actually need conditioned air...

Almost reminds me of the beat up spiral air ducting that is sometimes seen at an [unnamed all-solid launch vehicle] facility...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/08/2010 05:10 am
A bit of on-orbit mission summary from SFN:

Quote
Engineers have programmed portions of the Dragon's rendezvous sequence with the space station into the craft's computer for this mission. The flight testing will verify the capsule's ability to accomplish tightly-choreographed maneuvers.

So the mission profile is basically to run through the CRS rendezvous sequence, skipping the initial phase angle "chase" for time/power considerations. Except they'll be practicing these maneuvers without the trunk they'll have on the real CRS missions.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/08/2010 05:59 am

Yes, the thermal effect was my first concern as well, but I can't imagine that their analysis did NOT go as far as heat transfer, as you say. THAT would definitely be "systems engineering" failure, IMO. A previous post speculated that they've already done the analysis for vacuum without the extension (which they've said they don't "need"), which would represent a more severe heating case, and therefore they've already bounded the problem. That would seem to make sense, and would explain why they're apparently comfortable going this route.

Ok, I should have given a little more thought to my last comment - they may have a computer model ready to run that allows them to easily adjust the nozzle dimensions.

Typically such up such an analysis is more work at the start, and less work if you have to reiterate.

But my initial instinct, given that the primary design criteria for the nozzle is expansion of the flow, not thermal factors is not to assume that a ready model exists to run. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't, but given an apparent defect made it through QA and integration and how fast things seem to be happening right now, I'm not sure what to think about how much initiative their engineers take in identifying and following up on potential failure scenarios.

By the way, I'm not saying I think it's a problem. I don't, although I also can't entirely dismiss it.

7 hours...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Skyrocket on 12/08/2010 06:10 am
Does anyone know, which Cubesats will be launched on this mission?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/08/2010 07:52 am
I suppose my concern is that SpaceX is feeling a 'pressure to launch', given the imminence of shuttle retirement and the increasingly critical role CRS seems likely to play in this post-Constellation era.

I'm sure that NASA would not have authorised them to go if they weren't sure that the vehicle wouldn't fly safely.  That said, what SpaceX needs, and thus far has had very little of, is a nominal flight where everything works acceptably.  Until that happens, NewSpace commercial is going to continue to be perceived by the politicians as a bunch of enthusiastic, well-funded amateurs who cannot be trusted with America's space program.

The other day, I was watching some early Atlas flights on YouTube (both ICBM tests and Atlas/Agena launches).  Even the big guys have had some hard times, split nozzles and pretty pyrotechnic aborts at T+1 minute.  However, it's been a long time since then and the modern American public has forgotten that getting rocket designs, manufacturing and quality control right is a slow, error-strewn process.  My concern is that if SpaceX does not get up to speed quickly, political and public willingness to give them the needed time might run out.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 08:20 am
I hope they're feeling the pressure. Once STS retires for good, they will be largest carrier of logistics to and from the ISS. Without them the whole ISS project may be in jeopardy. As a taxpayer I want them to know that if they screw this up they screw up America's astronaut program for years.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Mapperuo on 12/08/2010 09:35 am
NASA TV has live shot of the rocket on the Media Channel beginning in an hour, Then at 1:55pm GMT live coverage of the launch on all channels for those interested.

Should be a bit better than the Space X page.  ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 12/08/2010 09:36 am
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/status.html

Quote
0930 GMT (4:30 a.m. EST)

After trimming away a cracked portion of an engine nozzle, SpaceX is readying its Falcon 9 rocket for a launch opportunity this morning.

The launch window opens at 9 a.m. EST (1400 GMT), but SpaceX will likely target liftoff three minutes later at 9:03 a.m. EST (1403 GMT).
>
>
If SpaceX is on track for the 9:03 a.m. launch opportunity, fueling operations are expected to begin after 7 a.m. EST (1200 GMT) today.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: FinalFrontier on 12/08/2010 10:05 am
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/status.html

Quote
0930 GMT (4:30 a.m. EST)

After trimming away a cracked portion of an engine nozzle, SpaceX is readying its Falcon 9 rocket for a launch opportunity this morning.

The launch window opens at 9 a.m. EST (1400 GMT), but SpaceX will likely target liftoff three minutes later at 9:03 a.m. EST (1403 GMT).
>
>
If SpaceX is on track for the 9:03 a.m. launch opportunity, fueling operations are expected to begin after 7 a.m. EST (1200 GMT) today.
will return at 8 then :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 10:10 am
the modern American public has forgotten that getting rocket designs, manufacturing and quality control right is a slow, error-strewn process. 

...and Elon is trying to remind them:

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/101208risk/
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 12/08/2010 10:26 am
I'm finding myself pretty worried that this issue has escaped until this late in the process. What's to say there isn't another issue that's escaped QA, but where it's not subject to a final visual check? This seems comparable to the intertank issue on STS-133, and ISTM that's not going to fly until we understand what caused it sufficiently to be sure that it will fly safely. (But I guess the alternative is to tear the whole Falcon apart and check it over. [**] )

If SpaceX could replace the nozzle and still fly on Friday, why would you not do that rather than take an unnecessary risk? Imagine if the nozzle fails! I also wonder if there are any failure modes where they could be left wondering if a nozzle issue contributed.



I did wonder whether lopping 4' off the Mvac nozzle would make it the same size as the first stage nozzle, as there would then be some analysis that might be relevant (though not sure if this nozzle would have the same profile as 1st stage?). But I think the first stage nozzle looks smaller than 5'?

cheers, Martin

[**] Has anyone ever done that - built a rocket, put if through WDR and/or static fire, then tear it down and see how the structure coped?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 12/08/2010 10:37 am
good find..thanks for link..lets hope no one watches it so server doesn't get swamped ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 12/08/2010 10:38 am
Y'all take a lot of things on faith, assuming SpaceX has analyzed this case.

It's hard to conceive that they would fly without analysing, but surprising that they could undertake a comprehensive analysis in such a short time. Jeez, that's a scary thought.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Skyrocket on 12/08/2010 10:39 am
Concerning the cubesats in the trunk:

Apparently there are 5 cubesat on this mission:

* 2 cubesats (3U) of NRO's Colony-1 program
* 2 cubesats of the Los Alamos National Laboratory
* 1 cubesat of the US Army - this one is likely the first of eight SMDC-ONE satellites.

http://www.spacenews.com/military/100408-nro-taps-boeing-next-cubesats.html

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 12/08/2010 10:39 am
NASA TV (cable) just flashed a promo for its COTS-1 coverage, listing it as "next." The current programming block ends at 7:00 AM EST, so perhaps the're going to cover the fueling on.  We'll see.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/08/2010 10:53 am
Not sure how people missed it, but the live coverage thread is here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23516.0

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 11:02 am
Chris, I am pretty sure we're respecting the "updates only" request. There were a lot of random discussions in this thread, and I personally am going to try to reduce the noise for people who are trying to get real, substantiative updates. I know I always come to NSF for live play-by-plays, and I think you got a good thing going there. (I bet traffic spikes like crazy during these events.)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 11:05 am
Arguing for their pricing being wrong is effectively arguing that.

You don't know the price of a launch and not talking ISS cargo
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 11:06 am
You don't know the price of a launch and not talking ISS cargo

I know the price of most of their contracts. So there's that.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 11:06 am
It's surprising how many people here seem to think SpaceX wouldn't have done analyses on performance, trajectory, stability and control, thermal issues, structural issues, etc. 

The issue is doing all of those over night
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 11:08 am


I'm sure that NASA would not have authorised them to go if they weren't sure that the vehicle wouldn't fly safely. 

NASA has no say in it.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 11:10 am
You don't know the price of a launch and not talking ISS cargo

I know the price of most of their contracts. So there's that.

No, you don't.  Were you on team that reviewed a Spacex proposal to NASA?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 11:28 am
SpaceX CRS contract cost is public knowledge (as is Orbital). Are you saying that there are hidden costs? If so do you have evidence as such?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 11:35 am
SpaceX CRS contract cost is public knowledge (as is Orbital). Are you saying that there are hidden costs? If so do you have evidence as such?

I am not talking ISS cargo.  There is little risk in each individual launch, when the cargo is made up of Tang, tee shirt and toilet paper.   I am talking about launching a several hundred million dollar spacecraft.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 11:56 am
Oh, I thought comparing current providers at current pricing for similar services was a legitimate way to see if they had "similar prices" or not. How about commercial crew then? SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell guaranteed launches cheaper than the Russians. How about them apples? Are people not worth as much as several hundred million dollar spacecraft?

I really thought it was wiser to compare current scenarios rather than future, speculative scenarios which one cannot actually provide evidence for. ::)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joshcryer on 12/08/2010 12:11 pm
"SpaceX has discovered the root cause of the two small cracks in the aft end of the 2nd stage engine nozzle extension," the statement said. "A GN2 vent line caused fluttering of the the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, creating the cracks. SpaceX engineers repaired the extension by trimming off the end where the cracks are located and corrected the root cause by diffusing the vent."

From SFN. Glad to know a root cause!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 12:21 pm
Oh, I thought comparing current providers at current pricing for similar services was a legitimate way to see if they had "similar prices" or not. How about commercial crew then? SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell guaranteed launches cheaper than the Russians. How about them apples? Are people not worth as much as several hundred million dollar spacecraft?

I really thought it was wiser to compare current scenarios rather than future, speculative scenarios which one cannot actually provide evidence for. ::)

Commercial crew is a "future, speculative scenario". 

And I am talking current scenarios, the cost/price to contract one F9.

Give it up, you don't know what you are talking about.  Just keep guzzling the koolade.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/08/2010 12:22 pm
Let me get this straight, yesterday evening, SpaceX technicians on a crane, working  through a man-hole sized access hatch in the interstage, removed the bottom 4 feet of the nozzle extension while the vehicle was in the vertical position at the pad? They were able to remove this piece, it's not still in there, is it?

With the recent shuttle repairs as evidence, maybe this kind of pad work is common, I don't know. Frankly, I'm a little astounded (and a little worried too).
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: racshot65 on 12/08/2010 12:27 pm
Will they be filming the capsule returning / splashing down ?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Mapperuo on 12/08/2010 12:32 pm
Has to be said.. Very impressive moustache on the right.

Webcast is much better this time.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 12:38 pm
Let me get this straight, yesterday evening, SpaceX technicians on a crane, working  through a man-hole sized access hatch in the interstage, removed the bottom 4 feet of the nozzle extension while the vehicle was in the vertical position at the pad? They were able to remove this piece, it's not still in there, is it?

With the recent shuttle repairs as evidence, maybe this kind of pad work is common, I don't know. Frankly, I'm a little astounded (and a little worried too).

If they were able to cut it off, they were able to cut it into small enough pieces to get it out of the interstage. And no, cutting off 4 feet of a nozzle extension on the pad is not common! Let's remember, though, that SpaceX has said this extension is not "needed" for performance on this flight...though, as I've said before, that statement begs the question why they didn't just remove it entirely. Maybe they didn't want to have to destack, which would have been more of a schedule hit.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joncz on 12/08/2010 01:06 pm
In homage to Jim's commentary on SpaceX processes...

Coming into autosequence start, the abort process was read over the net, including the directive that the phrase, "Hold, hold, hold" would be announced over the countdown net.

So when the autosequence aborts at T- 2:50, what is announced over the countdown net?  "Abort, abort abort."

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 01:09 pm
In homage to Jim's commentary on SpaceX processes...

Coming into autosequence start, the abort process was read over the net, including the directive that the phrase, "Hold, hold, hold" would be announced over the countdown net.

So when the autosequence aborts at T- 2:50, what is announced over the countdown net?  "Abort, abort abort."



Yeah, well, at least he didn't call "bailout, bailout, bailout!"
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: go4mars on 12/08/2010 01:16 pm
Responding to reporters today about changes to the engine bell, Elon Musk had this to say about Falcon:
"She'll make point five past lightspeed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself".

Did anyone ask if she can do the kessel run in less than 5 parsecs as a follow-on question?  :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2010 01:26 pm
In homage to Jim's commentary on SpaceX processes...

Coming into autosequence start, the abort process was read over the net, including the directive that the phrase, "Hold, hold, hold" would be announced over the countdown net.

So when the autosequence aborts at T- 2:50, what is announced over the countdown net?  "Abort, abort abort.


And what do you say when crew is onboard?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/08/2010 01:32 pm
In homage to Jim's commentary on SpaceX processes...

Coming into autosequence start, the abort process was read over the net, including the directive that the phrase, "Hold, hold, hold" would be announced over the countdown net.

So when the autosequence aborts at T- 2:50, what is announced over the countdown net?  "Abort, abort abort.


And what do you say when crew is onboard?
"Can you hold it for another hour?"
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/08/2010 01:35 pm
I think his point is "ABORT, ABORT, ABORT...no wait guys, don't pull the big handle that says....oops, too late"
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 01:38 pm
I think his point is "ABORT, ABORT, ABORT...no wait guys, don't pull the big handle that says....oops, too late"

With 3+ years until crewed flight, I think he has sufficient time to learn...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: TimL on 12/08/2010 01:39 pm
"Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: joncz on 12/08/2010 01:40 pm
And what do you say when crew is onboard?

Aboard, aboard, aboard.

?  ::)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: hernick on 12/08/2010 01:42 pm
Jump out! Jump out! Jump out!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/08/2010 01:42 pm
And what do you say when crew is onboard?

Aboard, aboard, aboard.

?  ::)
What do you say when the Swedish Chef is aboard and that happens?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: TimL on 12/08/2010 01:48 pm
I thought the whole point of this automated process was to ensure "the passengers" don't have a big handle to pull...and inadvertently abort a multi-million dollar launch because they're just passengers and not pilots?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Halidon on 12/08/2010 02:37 pm
I really appreciated the little live mini-interview SpaceX did just before the countdown resumed for attempt #2. Good information presented in an open and friendly manner.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/08/2010 02:41 pm
Oh, I thought comparing current providers at current pricing for similar services was a legitimate way to see if they had "similar prices" or not. How about commercial crew then? SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell guaranteed launches cheaper than the Russians. How about them apples? Are people not worth as much as several hundred million dollar spacecraft?

I really thought it was wiser to compare current scenarios rather than future, speculative scenarios which one cannot actually provide evidence for. ::)

Commercial crew is a "future, speculative scenario". 

And I am talking current scenarios, the cost/price to contract one F9.

Give it up, you don't know what you are talking about.  Just keep guzzling the koolade.

Jim I agree.  It is amazing the people who come on this site and argue as if they have all the data.  I don't know everything but when I make a point - its is based on 30 years of experience at the Cape, MSFC and Houston.  I have no ax to grind with any person or launch system.  I truly hope SpaceX is very successful just as I do for Atlas, Delta and two more shuttle flights.  The US needs SpaceX to service ISS and for that I am very supportive.  What irritates me are these "know it all" arm chair engineers who hide behind their monitors and argue stupid stuff all day.  I pointed some things out yesterday that the armchairs didn't like so they attack the sender when they run out of facts then want me to be more specific so they can attack those items - on and on with the koolaid.    Gets old trying to come and reason with good people who have real knowledge.  In some cases the airchairs are probably smart engineers on a specific system and believe that they have all the knowledge all the way to WDC.  I know I did when I was a young engineer at the Cape.   What they don't realize is they don't understand how things work a few levels above.   

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Zoomer30 on 12/08/2010 02:56 pm
Might be a bit early but WUHOO 2 for 2. All this Falcon 9 knows how to do is make orbit every time. Wonder if they stlill had that abrupt roll at t zero like the last time.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Zoomer30 on 12/08/2010 03:00 pm
I think SpaceX learned from the last launch that they NEED good press and PR as much as a good flight. Not keeping CNN informed of the countdown the last time cost them z bit of exposure (I know they have to keep some stuff secert)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Aeroman on 12/08/2010 03:01 pm
No roll to speak of, just a little fireball on the pad from what looks like an external hose leak or something (just guessing).
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/08/2010 03:37 pm
Significantly, upper stage guidence and control worked perfectly as far as I could see.  There also wasn't vapour venting from the vent just to the left and above the steering nozzle either.  They definately fixed a lot of stuff on this one.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jongoff on 12/08/2010 03:47 pm
I really appreciated the little live mini-interview SpaceX did just before the countdown resumed for attempt #2. Good information presented in an open and friendly manner.

Unfortunately I missed that part.  One of the three on-air personalities was a good friend of mine, Kevin (K-Bro) Brogan.  He was the guy who designed the Kestrel engine during SpaceX's early days. 

~Jon
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2010 04:11 pm
You don't know the price of a launch and not talking ISS cargo

I know the price of most of their contracts. So there's that.

The published contracts have a lot of asterisks in them.  Many in the the areas of price.  Do you have inside knowledge?

Elon to Gwynne:  How many times have I told you not to sign contracts with any asterisks?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Mader Levap on 12/08/2010 04:16 pm
A blind squirrel gets the nut sometimes.
I am usually lurker and I am nothing more than interested space enthusiast. I also am sorry for pulling something from previous day.

What caused me to do this is Jim reputation and his statement here. I am concerned, because I see here very serious disrepancy.

Why? So many people, Jim included, constantly say (rightly so) that rocket science is literally very hard. Yet we have statement about company, that pulled off now four successful flights in row, that it is "blind squirrel".

Is space and rocketry so easy that anyone can launch successfully four times in row by blind luck?

With all due respect, Jim, but I do not think so. You cannot eat cake and have cake. Thats all.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Crispy on 12/08/2010 04:19 pm
I really appreciated the little live mini-interview SpaceX did just before the countdown resumed for attempt #2. Good information presented in an open and friendly manner.

Unfortunately I missed that part.  One of the three on-air personalities was a good friend of mine, Kevin (K-Bro) Brogan.  He was the guy who designed the Kestrel engine during SpaceX's early days. 

~Jon

Please congratulate him on his excellent engine designing, and his moustache :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2010 04:30 pm
As they say, where you stand depends on where you sit.

Too excellent.  From where I sit, the first "sputnik" moment was on the first launch when they started F9, shut it down, then started it up again.  Now they gotta guy out there with a Sawzall?  "Take a couple of inches off that nozzle, Jackson."

That's confidence.  And I like it.

Is space and rocketry so easy that anyone can launch successfully four times in row by blind luck?

With all due respect, Jim, but I do not think so. You cannot eat cake and have cake. Thats all.

Now that's a first post for ya.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: KSC Engineer on 12/08/2010 04:38 pm
Good news:  part of a group of nano-satellites commonly known as the Grey Whale mission and Cubesat has deployed and are communicating.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 12/08/2010 04:50 pm
Good news indeed - Is there a link/page somewhere with more information about these payloads and their missions?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Space Lizard on 12/08/2010 05:34 pm
Are we still talking about two NRO Colony 1 cubesats, two LANL cubesats and a single SMDC-ONE cubesat, or did I miss something?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 12/08/2010 06:06 pm
Well, that was fun :)

Any further word on the 1st stage?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/08/2010 06:34 pm
My memory is going hazy, but is this the first launch where they didn't have an abort on engine startup and then quickly recycle for the actual launch?

Still congrads to all.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/08/2010 06:40 pm
Boy, is it gonna be interesting comparing the moods present during this press conference compared to the last one.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 12/08/2010 07:03 pm
Don't expect the usual suspects to change much.  They'll no doubt find some nit to pick; flaming hoses or whatever scorch marks are on Dragon.  Something, anything.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 12/08/2010 07:08 pm
What success here means:

1. We are a lot more likely to have a continuing HSF program post shuttle.

This is good for everybody. So no sour grapes allowed.

2. It is likely that less waste and graft will be allowed within HSF budgets.

Sorry Orrin.

3. If SpaceX can do it then so can others.

ULA etc time to decide to move to an aggressive posture, possibly with company acquisitions. If you are going to have any offering here, you have to commit yourself at this point and enter this game fully.

4. If anyone else tries they have to do at least as well as SpaceX

They have set the bar to reach.

5. SpaceX - watch out for overconfidence and process failures.

To slow you down, everyone else will want to find a chain of missteps to prove you are depending on "hot house plants".

6. Small new firms (like Altius etc)

Do strategic partnerships with 2-3 "big" firms. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Always underpromise and overdeliver. Try to drive your internal standards higher than your partners. Charge 2x what they want and don't look back.

Work within Musk's shockwave here.

7. Congress: How much of a political target do you want to paint on yourself?

2011 budget based on achievable successes across the board. Repriese Musks air of success or face the consequences. Now!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 12/08/2010 07:37 pm
All objectives achieved.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jeff.findley on 12/08/2010 07:46 pm
Watching the NASA press conference on this.  Musk seems to be shocked and elated that there were no major problems on this first flight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/08/2010 07:47 pm
I was referring to questioners at the news conference

I was referring to the panelists, actually.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 12/08/2010 07:49 pm
Musk says the heat shield performed superbly. He's highly confident it can handle a lunar or martian reentry.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: rdale on 12/08/2010 07:50 pm
There's actually a live thread for discussing the actual mission and press conference, this thread is just discussing stuff in general.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Dapholine on 12/08/2010 07:53 pm
Here is a rough comparison of how much they shortened the nozzle.
Left is Flight 1, on the right Flight 2
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/08/2010 07:55 pm
Don't expect the usual suspects to change much.  They'll no doubt find some nit to pick; flaming hoses or whatever scorch marks are on Dragon.  Something, anything.

i d iot

Even a squirrel finds a nut now and then.

Bait set and taken docmordrid.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: sdsds on 12/08/2010 08:15 pm
From live thread:
Repair guy [...] hand cut it.

Marty Anderson, flown in from California to do the job. 

Love to be a fly on the wall at his next performance review.  Manager asks, "Marty, in what way do you think you contributed most to the company's success during this last review period?"

Congratulations to Marty, to everyone involved in the expansion nozzle fix, to Falcon, Dragon, SpaceX, C3PO, and the leadership at NASA that made this a reality.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/08/2010 08:26 pm

Love to be a fly on the wall at his next performance review.  Manager asks, "Marty, in what way do you think you contributed most to the company's success during this last review period?"


Considering he has a real fear of flying, I suspect he already got his review and Christmas Bonus to boot ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 12/08/2010 08:47 pm
That was a pretty amazing picture of the repair... Sitting inside the erected F9 interstage, cutting a nozzle by hand. :D  :o
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Silmfeanor on 12/08/2010 08:51 pm
I'll just reupload it to this thread, then. The thing looks bigger on the inside.

 An amazing flight, all in all. I am wondering if we can get more information on the black box "Talon or something?" used on the stage - did it seperate from the stage? Came loose during break up?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 08:53 pm
Love the blue masking tape, too. But no one at the presser bothered to ask whether he used the Dremel or the SawzAll.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/08/2010 08:56 pm
Love the blue masking tape, too. But no one at the presser bothered to ask whether he used the Dremel or the SawzAll.

It would be entirely inappropriate for a NASA-funded flight to be seen to be endorsing a particular commercial product. ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MarsInMyLifetime on 12/08/2010 08:57 pm
Love the blue masking tape, too. But no one at the presser bothered to ask whether he used the Dremel or the SawzAll.
He's holding shears! He didn't cut corners, he cut a circumference.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 12/08/2010 08:58 pm
I get the feeling Marty will become a space celebrity.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/08/2010 09:07 pm
I get the feeling Marty will become a space celebrity.

I think his Christmas gift should be a pair of gold-plated tin (oops, niobium) snips on a plaque.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/08/2010 09:08 pm
He's holding shears! He didn't cut corners, he cut a circumference.

In other words, he circumcised it...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 12/08/2010 09:12 pm
I get the feeling Marty will become a space celebrity.

I think his Christmas gift should be a pair of gold-plated tin (oops, niobium) snips on a plaque.
Cut up squares of that niobium nozzle excess might make valuable holiday gifts to members of congress.

Although I think that Hutchinson and Shelby should each be gifted a roll of toilet paper - whatever kind is used on the ISS ...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/08/2010 09:21 pm
Although I think that Hutchinson and Shelby should each be gifted a roll of toilet paper - whatever kind is used on the ISS ...

Heh. Don't forget Nelson. As for an appropriate gift, in the light of Musk's comments I think a shrubbery would nice. One that looks nice. And not too expensive.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Dappa on 12/08/2010 09:21 pm
About the little fire incident at liftoff:

It looks like the umbilical in question didn't separate properly, as can be seen in this picture (http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-5794.jpg).
All umbilicals but one have separated. Also note the cable between the strongback and the umbilical attachment point, which has little slack left.

The next picture (http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-5795.jpg) shows the umbilical snapping, probably because the cable started pulling on the attachment. Fuel is already escaping the umbilical.

Source of pictures:
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49734
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49735
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/08/2010 09:24 pm
Never mind the fire, look at this image: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49739

No wonder why the left arm of the strongback was invisible in pad footage after liftoff. Looks like they have some beefing up to do.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/08/2010 09:26 pm
Never mind the fire, look at this image: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49739

No wonder why the left arm of the strongback was invisible in pad footage after liftoff. Looks like they have some beefing up to do.

Oh, snap.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/08/2010 09:29 pm
Anything Ares I can do, Falcon can do - better!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 12/08/2010 09:34 pm
Anything Ares I can do, Falcon can do - better!

Not defending the stick or anything, but at this point such observations are like beating a horse run over by a steamroller. Twice. Just let this chapter of space history close.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: DLR on 12/08/2010 09:35 pm
Haha, SpaceX brings a full launch system with return capability to completion for approximately 1 Billion in funding!

This makes NASA look extremely bad, considering how much they planned in for the Ares I and still plan in for a heavy lifter.

This is a great day for space exploration.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Dappa on 12/08/2010 09:42 pm
Never mind the fire, look at this image: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49739

No wonder why the left arm of the strongback was invisible in pad footage after liftoff. Looks like they have some beefing up to do.
Wich might actually be caused (in part) by the little fire: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49733
You see how the spilled fuel forms a trail through the left arm of the strongback? I believe it is aluminium, so not that great at withstanding high temperatures. A fire could cause it to weaken significantly.

Also, the arms that didn't have fuel trails through them (the right arm, both arms at F9's first flight) have survived liftoff, apparently without a scratch.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/08/2010 09:43 pm
If I could be permitted to brag a little bit:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg667237#msg667237

Actually, those look like tin-snips, not aviation shears.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=23516.0;attach=258055;image
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/08/2010 09:50 pm
Not defending the stick or anything, but at this point such observations are like beating a horse run over by a steamroller. Twice. Just let this chapter of space history close.

True, I was just joking about trashing ground structures. That's not actually a good thing.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/08/2010 09:59 pm
Wich might actually be caused (in part) by the little fire: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49733

The perspective is misleading there. I don't think the flame had anything to do with it. See this image: http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/press/02.jpg

I think it's simply a result of the engine backblast hitting the strongback hard. The vehicle got off the pad in a slightly different way than last time and portion of the strongback got peppered.

To be honest, I was kind of expecting both arms to be snapped off during the first launch, they did/do look fragile.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChuckC on 12/08/2010 10:05 pm
Once again Space X has proven that it has the right stuff.

Go Space X Go!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Dappa on 12/08/2010 10:15 pm
Wich might actually be caused (in part) by the little fire: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49733

The perspective is misleading there. I don't think the flame had anything to do with it. See this image: http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/press/02.jpg
If you look a little more closely at the image you provided, you'll see that the flame has not consumed the entire cloud of RP-1. It started burning at the engines and still has to go through the rest of the cloud. The top(unburned) half of the RP-1 cloud is located in the left arm, or right from this perspective. A fraction of a second later, the arm would be in big fireball.

This supports my opinion that the arm was weakened by the fire.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: awalters on 12/08/2010 10:23 pm
Congrats to SpaceX!

This is from a sound activated remote camera about 2000 feet away

Alan Walters
Awaltersphoto.com
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: docmordrid on 12/08/2010 11:36 pm
Just finished listening to Shotwell's statement at the presser. 

LZ was 60x20 km, and Dragon landed 800m from the ships.

NICE shooting, Tex ;)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: neilh on 12/08/2010 11:49 pm
Congrats to SpaceX!

This is from a sound activated remote camera about 2000 feet away

Alan Walters
Awaltersphoto.com

Wow!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/09/2010 12:22 am
So when does the COTS Demo 2 thread start?

Are we looking at another seven months between Falcon 9 launches or longer? Jim care to make a prediction?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: hernick on 12/09/2010 12:34 am
So when does the COTS Demo 2 thread start?

Are we looking at another seven months between Falcon 9 launches or longer? Jim care to make a prediction?

During the press conference today, Elon said he's hoping for a merged COTS Demo 2/3 in the summer of 2011.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: R.Simko on 12/09/2010 12:50 am
So when does the COTS Demo 2 thread start?

Are we looking at another seven months between Falcon 9 launches or longer? Jim care to make a prediction?

During the press conference today, Elon said he's hoping for a merged COTS Demo 2/3 in the summer of 2011.

After the show SpaceX put on today, I think it will be hard for NASA not to agree to a combined COTS 2/3 flight.  SpaceX had a very successful flight, they just need to write up the proposal in a way that addresses any concerns NASA might have.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: arkaska on 12/09/2010 12:54 am
After the show SpaceX put on today, I think it will be hard for NASA not to agree to a combined COTS 2/3 flight.  SpaceX had a very successful flight, they just need to write up the proposal in a way that addresses any concerns NASA might have.

Might be a bit early to say that. We haven't seen all data on how it preformed in space and then we have the failed Draco thruster, what does NASA say about that?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: R.Simko on 12/09/2010 01:11 am
After the show SpaceX put on today, I think it will be hard for NASA not to agree to a combined COTS 2/3 flight.  SpaceX had a very successful flight, they just need to write up the proposal in a way that addresses any concerns NASA might have.

Might be a bit early to say that. We haven't seen all data on how it preformed in space and then we have the failed Draco thruster, what does NASA say about that?

At the conference this afternoon (Wednesday), it all sounded very positive.  The Dracos have redundancy and I believe I read somewhere that any 2 Dracos could fail and Dragon can still complete its mission.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/09/2010 01:29 am
I think the raised eyebrows are one failed on such a short flight, but then again we don't know what the failure was... there is a wide range of possible failures from the benign to the OMG!!!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ChuckC on 12/09/2010 01:41 am
Anything Ares I can do, Falcon can do - better!

Not defending the stick or anything, but at this point such observations are like beating a horse run over by a steamroller. Twice. Just let this chapter of space history close.

Come on there's alot of fun beating up on the stick.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/09/2010 01:44 am
Are we sure that a Draco failed?

I know it was reported here by Chris B citing sources (usually very authoritative), but in the presser Elon specifically said that the Dracos have redundancy but none of them failed. That was one of his examples of how Dragon has a lot of margin but didn't need it today.

Was the alleged Draco failure noted anywhere else?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mlorrey on 12/09/2010 01:51 am
Anything Ares I can do, Falcon can do - better!

Not defending the stick or anything, but at this point such observations are like beating a horse run over by a steamroller. Twice. Just let this chapter of space history close.

Come on there's alot of fun beating up on the stick.

Musk made a rather interesting comment at the presser about how using legacy equipment meant that you inherited the legacy cost structure, which IMHO is aimed at least as much at the Stick, as at Orion costing 10 times more than Dragon to develop.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: R.Simko on 12/09/2010 01:58 am
Are we sure that a Draco failed?

I know it was reported here by Chris B citing sources (usually very authoritative), but in the presser Elon specifically said that the Dracos have redundancy but none of them failed. That was one of his examples of how Dragon has a lot of margin but didn't need it today.

Was the alleged Draco failure noted anywhere else?

I also took note of Elon's positve comment about engines.  Hopefully tomorrow  we'll all have more info. on how the Draco's performed.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/09/2010 02:00 am
Musk made a rather interesting comment at the presser about how using legacy equipment meant that you inherited the legacy cost structure, which IMHO is aimed at least as much at the Stick, as at Orion costing 10 times more than Dragon to develop.

Legacy equipment has advantages and disadvantages. While Falcon's Stong back might have been damaged in this flight, it is one impressive improvement. The ability to bring the rocket to a hanger with a lot more ease than say the crawlers. Can you imagine how much longer it would take to fix a problem on Ares 1, Saturn I, or Saturn V's Second stage?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: zaitcev on 12/09/2010 02:29 am
Legacy equipment has advantages and disadvantages. While Falcon's Stong back might have been damaged in this flight, it is one impressive improvement. The ability to bring the rocket to a hanger with a lot more ease than say the crawlers. Can you imagine how much longer it would take to fix a problem on Ares 1, Saturn I, or Saturn V's Second stage?
Falcon was not brought back to hangar for the nozzle cutting. Marty crawled inside the interstage while the rocket was standing on the pad and cut the nozzle right there. So your argument does not support your proposition about the merits of horizontal assembly, although it may be a correct one.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/09/2010 02:30 am


After the show SpaceX put on today, I think it will be hard for NASA not to agree to a combined COTS 2/3 flight.  SpaceX had a very successful flight, they just need to write up the proposal in a way that addresses any concerns NASA might have.

Well, it may not be that cut and dried. Alan, the NASA PM, was beaming like a new papa at the start of the presser, but when he was asked about combining COTS 2/3 his smile disappeared and he looked extremely uncomfortable. His mouth gave the predictably non-committal answer, but his expression said, I'm really not happy with this idea.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Proponent on 12/09/2010 02:37 am
Falcon was not brought back to hangar for the nozzle cutting. Marty crawled inside the interstage while the rocket was standing on the pad and cut the nozzle right there.

I'm surprised SpaceX preferred to keep the rocket vertical and use a crane to examine and modify the nozzle.  Why was this approach more attractive than lowering the rocket to the horizontal position and possibly rolling it back to the hangar as well?  As previously pointed out, the crane was neither expensive nor risky, but what would have been the least bit difficult about simply lowering to the horizontal?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/09/2010 02:40 am
Falcon was not brought back to hangar for the nozzle cutting. Marty crawled inside the interstage while the rocket was standing on the pad and cut the nozzle right there.

I'm surprised SpaceX preferred to keep the rocket vertical and use a crane to examine and modify the nozzle.  Why was this approach more attractive than lowering the rocket to the horizontal position and possibly rolling it back to the hangar as well?  As previously pointed out, the crane was neither expensive nor risky, but what would have been the least bit difficult about simply lowering to the horizontal?

Because it was easier for Marty and his tin snips to do the repair in a vertical orientation (see the photo of him in the interstage). In fact, it would have been almost impossible in a horizontal orientation, because the nozzle extension is something like 8 ft in diameter at the base.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/09/2010 02:42 am
Falcon was not brought back to hangar for the nozzle cutting. Marty crawled inside the interstage while the rocket was standing on the pad and cut the nozzle right there.

I'm surprised SpaceX preferred to keep the rocket vertical and use a crane to examine and modify the nozzle.  Why was this approach more attractive than lowering the rocket to the horizontal position and possibly rolling it back to the hangar as well?  As previously pointed out, the crane was neither expensive nor risky, but what would have been the least bit difficult about simply lowering to the horizontal?

I was looking at that picture they posted of the technician working in the interstage cutting off the nozzle.  It looks like he was able to stand on a platform and walk around the nozzle with the cut line always around 5 feet off the platform.  If the nozzle had been horizontal, he'd have had to get under it for the bottom, get on a ladder or scaffold for the sides and do I'm-not-sure-what to get to the top.  In other words, it was probably easier in the vertical position.

This is just a guess from the pictures shown.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: baldusi on 12/09/2010 03:00 am
Well, it may not be that cut and dried. Alan, the NASA PM, was beaming like a new papa at the start of the presser, but when he was asked about combining COTS 2/3 his smile disappeared and he looked extremely uncomfortable. His mouth gave the predictably non-committal answer, but his expression said, I'm really not happy with this idea.
I think they should allow them to actually berth with the ISS in the next COTS, but still send up the third COTS... with some non critical supplies. So NASA get's their money worth of launches, but they actually do an extra supply shipment. So, if every mission is nominal, they will have 4 Falcon 9 launches, 3 splashdowns and two berthing before relaying on the Dragon for "official" supplies.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: arkaska on 12/09/2010 03:19 am
I think they should allow them to actually berth with the ISS in the next COTS, but still send up the third COTS... with some non critical supplies. So NASA get's their money worth of launches, but they actually do an extra supply shipment. So, if every mission is nominal, they will have 4 Falcon 9 launches, 3 splashdowns and two berthing before relaying on the Dragon for "official" supplies.

It the next COTS would berth to ISS there is no point in sending up another COTS. COTS are there to verify the systems BEFORE they berth with ISS..
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/09/2010 03:40 am
I think the noncommittal answer on COTS2/3 was more because Alan was not authorized to make a public comment either way at that point than because he thought it would be a bad idea.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: SpacexULA on 12/09/2010 03:44 am
It the next COTS would berth to ISS there is no point in sending up another COTS. COTS are there to verify the systems BEFORE they berth with ISS..

All the milestones involved with COTS3, and the mission are all together only 50 million total (8 million for the actual launch).   This is cheap compared to the actual CRS missions.  Why would NASA let SpaceX skip COTS 3 when it's basically a 1/2 price CRS delivery.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/162330main_SPACE_ACT_AGREEMENT_FOR_COTS.pdf

Honestly today's success just made all the following COTS/CRS milestones a LOT easier because now have a flown dragon to learn lessons from.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 12/09/2010 03:46 am
I think the noncommittal answer on COTS2/3 was more because Alan was not authorized to make a public comment either way at that point than because he thought it would be a bad idea.

Indeed. He can't personally make that decision on the fly in a press conference.

But the signs look very promising, because they could not have asked for a better result than what they got for the 1st flight. (If indeed NASA was serious in entertaining the idea of combining the test flights)

But as Elon noted himself, there are schedule constraints on the SpaceX side as well. They need to have working solar panels and other systems lacking on this Dragon before attempting the 1st ISS berthing.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mr. mark on 12/09/2010 03:47 am
Wow, first off great COTS-1 flight by Spacex but, I believe a measured approach for the future is best. I'm not just talking about the flight, which appeared spot on. I'm also talking about the pad which experienced some damage. Until Spacex can address all aspects of flight operations and make them seamless, it is too soon to say that they should rush this or that. As someone who remembers the tragedy of Apollo 1, I would hate to see history repeated. Dream big but, take the time to get it right. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 12/09/2010 04:03 am
I just wanted to 'fess up.  My post last night expressed grave doubt that SpaceX would actually modify the second stage engine bell.  I must be an "old school" old man.  I still think it is remarkably, astoundingly daring, even if the explanation after the fact shows their decision to be more methodical than the bits and pieces that were let out before launch.  Whether the enormous success of the mission justifies the choice is not obvious to me, but it seems to be to SpaceX.  Frankly, this much success was unimaginable, and I am quite delighted to see it.   

Waiting with curiosity for tomorrow's announcement of the "secret payload"...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/09/2010 04:05 am
I doubt that fixing any pad damage and addressing the umbilical issue are the long poles toward a COTS2/3 attempt next summer. They had something similar to this problem on flight 1, and they'll definitely want to resolve this for the next flight, especially since there are so few other issues to address this time.

The long poles are almost certainly the solar arrays and the avionics upgrades. The umbilical check valve or quick-disconnect or whatever is a comparatively small challenge, and they should have plenty of time to work it for next summer.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: baldusi on 12/09/2010 04:06 am
All the milestones involved with COTS3, and the mission are all together only 50 million total (8 million for the actual launch).   This is cheap compared to the actual CRS missions.  Why would NASA let SpaceX skip COTS 3 when it's basically a 1/2 price CRS delivery.
It's not only a 1/2 CRS. I would feel better in relaying a rocket with 4 successful flight rather than 3. Ditto with the reentry (2 vs 3), ISS aproaches (2 vs 1) and the whole mission control (2 vs 3). If NASA paid their money they should get it back. The trade off is an extra six months for the next CRS. But since the COTS 3 is a sort of CRS, I don't see much problems there.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: butters on 12/09/2010 04:19 am
If NASA permits SpaceX to combine COTS2/3, then SpaceX should agree to provide CRS1 for the price of COTS3. That seems like a fair deal.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: arkaska on 12/09/2010 04:32 am
All the milestones involved with COTS3, and the mission are all together only 50 million total (8 million for the actual launch).   This is cheap compared to the actual CRS missions.  Why would NASA let SpaceX skip COTS 3 when it's basically a 1/2 price CRS delivery.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/162330main_SPACE_ACT_AGREEMENT_FOR_COTS.pdf

Honestly today's success just made all the following COTS/CRS milestones a LOT easier because now have a flown dragon to learn lessons from.

My comment was not that they should skip COTS 3 just that if the next COTS would dock to ISS their wouldn't be any point in a having a third one. If what you are saying is true that it is more likely that COTS 2 will not dock with ISS.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 12/09/2010 04:35 am
Remember that the contract for COTS was to produce data and demonstrate capabilities.  If NASA feels sufficiently comfortable with letting COTS 2 fly close enough to the ISS, they get more data faster by combining the flights.  Remember, NASA is very anxious to have this capability, and combining flights would put them closer to their original schedule.  The COTS 2 flight may have to spend that much more time near the ISS, where they probably will be demonstrating abort maneuvers like the HTV and ATV did.   
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 12/09/2010 04:40 am
If NASA permits SpaceX to combine COTS2/3, then SpaceX should agree to provide CRS1 for the price of COTS3. That seems like a fair deal.

Aren't the COTS contracts dealing more with technical milestones, and not the # of actual flights? I don't believe SpaceX get paid per flight, per se, for these test missions. COTS 1/2/3 was just an agreed-upon schedule - but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Hauerg on 12/09/2010 04:44 am
It the next COTS would berth to ISS there is no point in sending up another COTS. COTS are there to verify the systems BEFORE they berth with ISS..

All the milestones involved with COTS3, and the mission are all together only 50 million total (8 million for the actual launch).   This is cheap compared to the actual CRS missions.  Why would NASA let SpaceX skip COTS 3 when it's basically a 1/2 price CRS delivery.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/162330main_SPACE_ACT_AGREEMENT_FOR_COTS.pdf

Honestly today's success just made all the following COTS/CRS milestones a LOT easier because now have a flown dragon to learn lessons from.



IIRC COTS included berthing to ISS but NO cargo. Did not make a lot of sense to me anyway.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/09/2010 04:51 am
Here is a rough comparison of how much they shortened the nozzle.
Left is Flight 1, on the right Flight 2

Nice job, Dapholine.  Useful.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 12/09/2010 04:51 am
So if they load COTS 2 with the three T's (Tee shirts, tang, and toilet paper) and it docks to the ISS, it's win-win-win.  Earlier data for NASA, earlier cargo for ISS, one fewer rocket for SpaceX to build.  It would be audacious, but SpaceX seems to be that today.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/09/2010 04:53 am
This makes NASA look extremely bad, considering how much they planned in for the Ares I and still plan in for a heavy lifter.

Not all of NASA.  Just the parts that foisted on us the debacle of Ares... 'Course, certain Representatives, Senators and contractors are accomplices in that crime.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/09/2010 04:58 am
but when he was asked about combining COTS 2/3 his smile disappeared and he looked extremely uncomfortable. His mouth gave the predictably non-committal answer, but his expression said, I'm really not happy with this idea.

He has little if any say.  Only Station gets to decide if someone approaches.  This question would be better asked to Suffredini and the resupply manager.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/09/2010 05:04 am
While NASA is "anxious," it also has a dozens of billions of dollars asset to protect.  Dragon still has to prove it can talk to, safely approach and temporarily be a part of this asset.  NONE of that was proven today.  That's non-trivial.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jhoblik on 12/09/2010 05:31 am
ESA had no experience unmanned spacecraft - before first ATV flight. ESA ATV was allow to dock with ISS on their first flight. What is difference between ESA and Spacex experience? I didn't see any reason not let them approach ISS on the next flight and if every test will be OK like in ATV flight let them to dock.

While NASA is "anxious," it also has a dozens of billions of dollars asset to protect.  Dragon still has to prove it can talk to, safely approach and temporarily be a part of this asset.  NONE of that was proven today.  That's non-trivial.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 12/09/2010 05:34 am
We don't know the exact details of the oversight and/or control NASA had over the ATV design and testing, so it might be apples and oranges.

But note that ESA had the LV in operation, and experience with spacecraft development. SpaceX had neither when the COTS contracts were drawn up.

But the ATV (and HTV) still did pretty extensive on-orbit testing before approaching ISS.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 12/09/2010 05:40 am
Regarding the 'humorous' cargo of this mission, and it being Monty Python related... My guess is that it was something like this:
(http://mooreslore.corante.com/archives/images/spam.gif)
(a can of spam)

It would be a nice 'poke in the eye' to the 'spam in a can' critics of commercial HSF capsules.  :)
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/09/2010 05:47 am
The ability to bring the rocket to a hanger with a lot more ease than say the crawlers. Can you imagine how much longer it would take to fix a problem on Ares 1, Saturn I, or Saturn V's Second stage?

Not a good comparison. Falcon 9 weighs maybe 50 tons at rollout. Shuttle stack weighs more like 1400 tons because of the SRB's. This makes both the structure required to stabilize and tilt up the shuttle huge (Buran had it a little better because of the liquid boosters, but its erector was gargantuan (photo (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qNh1YlA0afI/Rtl1YpOCPgI/AAAAAAAAAcY/Y3xIm1efOzo/s400/buran_20_big.jpg))), and it makes transporting that load across a swamp much more complicated. Keep in mind that part of the reason for the crawlers was the large track area to distribute the load to the roadbed, versus the substantial foundation a rail system would have needed.

There are also quite a few more factors than just rollout making a shuttle launch complicated. Cutting half a day off of rollout to bring the time for that task in line with Falcon doesn't substantially change the overall time from rollout to launch with shuttle.

I was looking at that picture they posted of the technician working in the interstage cutting off the nozzle.  It looks like he was able to stand on a platform and walk around the nozzle with the cut line always around 5 feet off the platform.  If the nozzle had been horizontal, he'd have had to get under it for the bottom, get on a ladder or scaffold for the sides and do I'm-not-sure-what to get to the top.  In other words, it was probably easier in the vertical position.

It also keeps the nozzle in symmetrical loading compared to having it on its side with no stiffening band in place. It would be more likely to flop around in the horizontal position.

Plus, a basket is easier to move than the entire erector and launch support base. I'd imagine the latter part is probably pinned or bolted in place when the rocket is vertical.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: gospacex on 12/09/2010 07:43 am
Anything Ares I can do, Falcon can do - better!

Not defending the stick or anything, but at this point such observations are like beating a horse run over by a steamroller. Twice. Just let this chapter of space history close.

People who organized Ares I/V debacle are still mostly in place. For example, "our experts in Utah". I bet we will see them again pushing for, say, 5-seg SRBs even though SLS does not need those. And other groups will similarly try to squeeze as much pork from SLS as possible.

Musk is their nightmare. >>8]

Go SpaceX!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/09/2010 07:47 am
The merger of COTS-2 and COTS-3 depends on many things, one of which is the performance of the Dragon's GNC and RCS system.  Personally, I would allow SpaceX to perform an ISS rendezvous on the next flight but still insist on a separate proximity operations and docking flight.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: arkaska on 12/09/2010 08:25 am
ESA had no experience unmanned spacecraft - before first ATV flight. ESA ATV was allow to dock with ISS on their first flight. What is difference between ESA and Spacex experience? I didn't see any reason not let them approach ISS on the next flight and if every test will be OK like in ATV flight let them to dock.

You have to remember that ESA put more money into development and testing before they actually flew. They also had a back-up docking system in Kurs which Dragon do not have.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Space Lizard on 12/09/2010 11:58 am
While Dragon, like HTV, has to be grabbed by RMS, ATV has an autonomous docking capability, which requires a high level of redundancy and built-in intelligence for self-abort and collision avoidance.

It is also reportedly able to dock with an unstabilized ISS.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: sandrot on 12/09/2010 12:18 pm
Positioning for RMS grab doesn't require less ability.

There are advantages with berthing, for once, it's much better for cargo.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/09/2010 12:27 pm
This morning it occurred to me that you have to parse Musk's words carefully, even when his "mind is blown."

I came out of the press conference thinking that Musk had alleged that Dragon can carry 7 crew to ISS, compared to only 3 for Orion.

That surprised me given that there's obviously going to weight penalties for ELCSS & especially for abort capability engines & propellant.

After looking back over the words, he only said it can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.

In other words, Dragon cargo with ELCSS can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.
Dragon crew most likely won't have the space or margin for more than 3.

He's sneaky. I bet if you strip a lot of equipment off of Orion you can make it a 7 person lifeboat as well, at very low cost.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 12/09/2010 12:37 pm
He's sneaky. I bet if you strip a lot of equipment off of Orion you can make it a 7 person lifeboat as well, at very low cost.
my 2 cents on what he was thinking...
I think what he is indirectly saying is for the cost (and time savings), Dragon is the way to go.  Orion hasn't flown yet and will cost $X to finish and test.  Spacex has now flown dragon and can do pretty much the same thing..so modify it as you like for x% less then cost for just finishing Orion.  And if NASA lets Spacex reuse some of the dragons..savings is much more..

jb
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 12/09/2010 12:45 pm
This morning it occurred to me that you have to parse Musk's words carefully, even when his "mind is blown."

I came out of the press conference thinking that Musk had alleged that Dragon can carry 7 crew to ISS, compared to only 3 for Orion.

That surprised me given that there's obviously going to weight penalties for ELCSS & especially for abort capability engines & propellant.

After looking back over the words, he only said it can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.

In other words, Dragon cargo with ELCSS can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.
Dragon crew most likely won't have the space or margin for more than 3.

He's sneaky. I bet if you strip a lot of equipment off of Orion you can make it a 7 person lifeboat as well, at very low cost.



Conspiracy warning.  Everything I've seen and heard including the video graphic shows the capsule with 7 crew both ways.  In addition, the upmass is twice what the downmass is on the vehicle - 6000kg to 3000kg.  Show me any evidence that what you're saying is valid and I'll reconsider.  Can't say I consider the press conference as tangible evidence.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/09/2010 02:17 pm
This morning it occurred to me that you have to parse Musk's words carefully, even when his "mind is blown."

I came out of the press conference thinking that Musk had alleged that Dragon can carry 7 crew to ISS, compared to only 3 for Orion.

That surprised me given that there's obviously going to weight penalties for ELCSS & especially for abort capability engines & propellant.

After looking back over the words, he only said it can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.

In other words, Dragon cargo with ELCSS can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.
Dragon crew most likely won't have the space or margin for more than 3.

He's sneaky. I bet if you strip a lot of equipment off of Orion you can make it a 7 person lifeboat as well, at very low cost.



Conspiracy warning.  Everything I've seen and heard including the video graphic shows the capsule with 7 crew both ways.  In addition, the upmass is twice what the downmass is on the vehicle - 6000kg to 3000kg.  Show me any evidence that what you're saying is valid and I'll reconsider.  Can't say I consider the press conference as tangible evidence.

Perhaps I should have clarified that this is an alternate, likely interpretation of his statement.

I just don't see where the extra mass and space requirements of the abort system and ELCSS go, unless they can reduce the existing margins by that much!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 12/09/2010 02:26 pm
This morning it occurred to me that you have to parse Musk's words carefully, even when his "mind is blown."

I came out of the press conference thinking that Musk had alleged that Dragon can carry 7 crew to ISS, compared to only 3 for Orion.

That surprised me given that there's obviously going to weight penalties for ELCSS & especially for abort capability engines & propellant.

After looking back over the words, he only said it can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.

In other words, Dragon cargo with ELCSS can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.
Dragon crew most likely won't have the space or margin for more than 3.

He's sneaky. I bet if you strip a lot of equipment off of Orion you can make it a 7 person lifeboat as well, at very low cost.



Conspiracy warning.  Everything I've seen and heard including the video graphic shows the capsule with 7 crew both ways.  In addition, the upmass is twice what the downmass is on the vehicle - 6000kg to 3000kg.  Show me any evidence that what you're saying is valid and I'll reconsider.  Can't say I consider the press conference as tangible evidence.

Ineresting thought.. While it may take Space-X 3 years to launch men to orbit(Develop some sort of LAS).. How long would it take to have a "life boat" Dragon ready that launched unmanned?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: arkaska on 12/09/2010 02:34 pm
Ineresting thought.. While it may take Space-X 3 years to launch men to orbit(Develop some sort of LAS).. How long would it take to have a "life boat" Dragon ready that launched unmanned?

Dragon is not certified for any long stay in orbit so that has to be worked out. IIRC the plan is to have orion light as a life boat since Dragon is not built to stay in orbit for 6 months.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 12/09/2010 02:39 pm
While Dragon, like HTV, has to be grabbed by RMS, ATV has an autonomous docking capability, which requires a high level of redundancy and built-in intelligence for self-abort and collision avoidance.

Incorrect. The levels of redundancy and intelligence required are the same.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 12/09/2010 02:43 pm
ESA had no experience unmanned spacecraft - before first ATV flight. ESA ATV was allow to dock with ISS on their first flight. What is difference between ESA and Spacex experience? I didn't see any reason not let them approach ISS on the next flight and if every test will be OK like in ATV flight let them to dock.

SpaceX is getting less NASA insight/oversight than either ESA or JAXA. ATV and HTV were under development for over a decade and NASA was involved at every step. In airport security terms, SpaceX got a couple of waves with the metal detector wand while ESA and JAXA got the full body-cavity search.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jorge on 12/09/2010 02:43 pm
Ineresting thought.. While it may take Space-X 3 years to launch men to orbit(Develop some sort of LAS).. How long would it take to have a "life boat" Dragon ready that launched unmanned?

Dragon is not certified for any long stay in orbit so that has to be worked out. IIRC the plan is to have orion light as a life boat since Dragon is not built to stay in orbit for 6 months.

You do not recall correctly.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: marsavian on 12/09/2010 02:45 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/b7f497e4aa85d103f0d6d9a8dd704a6f-126.html

Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, who oversaw implementation of the COTS program, said in an email the Falcon 9/Dragon launch was a "stunning achievement for SpaceX."

"New launch systems are notable for their high failure rate on early test flights, yet Falcon 9 is now two-for-two with its success today," he said. "Moreover, the first flight of any new air- or spacecraft is an uncertain event, even more so when the vehicle must be reentered and recovered. To accomplish all of this so early in the planned flight test sequence is a marvelous feat for SpaceX."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 12/09/2010 02:50 pm
Ineresting thought.. While it may take Space-X 3 years to launch men to orbit(Develop some sort of LAS).. How long would it take to have a "life boat" Dragon ready that launched unmanned?

Dragon is not certified for any long stay in orbit so that has to be worked out. IIRC the plan is to have orion light as a life boat since Dragon is not built to stay in orbit for 6 months.

You do not recall correctly.

Yes, IIRC up to 2 years in flight for Dragon Lab.  Mind you, checked their datasheet and it doesn't specify.

So far as lifeboat goes, I'd expect it wouldn't be more than 12 months.  The complex issue is the LAS.  At the post launch press conference, Elon referred to the other requirements as 'minor'.  Seats, environmental upgrade and so on.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/09/2010 02:58 pm
but when he was asked about combining COTS 2/3 his smile disappeared and he looked extremely uncomfortable. His mouth gave the predictably non-committal answer, but his expression said, I'm really not happy with this idea.

He has little if any say.  Only Station gets to decide if someone approaches.  This question would be better asked to Suffredini and the resupply manager.

if I were Suffredini I'm pretty sure I'd want a separate COTS 2 and 3, because of 1. the increase in data to review for flight safety, 2. the difference of COTS1 vehicle from COTS 2 and 3, (i.e. solar panels and extended performance over time) and most crucially, 3. the opportunity to review COTS-2 prox-ops and rendezvous data outside of the time-pressure of a flight environment.

At the very least I wouldn't authorize a combined COTS-2/3 without an extended on-orbit period between 2 and 3 that gave adequate time for a thorough data review between prox ops /approach and the actual COTS-3 berthing.

(queue somebody at NASA to say, "I know Suffredini. Suffredini is a friend of mine, and you're no Suffredini...")
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 12/09/2010 02:59 pm
Ineresting thought.. While it may take Space-X 3 years to launch men to orbit(Develop some sort of LAS).. How long would it take to have a "life boat" Dragon ready that launched unmanned?

Dragon is not certified for any long stay in orbit so that has to be worked out. IIRC the plan is to have orion light as a life boat since Dragon is not built to stay in orbit for 6 months.

You do not recall correctly.

Yes, IIRC up to 2 years in flight for Dragon Lab.  Mind you, checked their datasheet and it doesn't specify.

So far as lifeboat goes, I'd expect it wouldn't be more than 12 months.  The complex issue is the LAS.  At the post launch press conference, Elon referred to the other requirements as 'minor'.  Seats, environmental upgrade and so on.

LAS is not needed for Dragon to function in a "lifeboat only" mode.  Could be launched without LAS with a full load of Cargo then serve as lifeboat for crew return.

The bigger issue is it's inability to undock without Station support from Robotic arm

Then you're talking need for APAS.. and APAS hardware on station. And all the required testing.

I think you could use it for mixed crew and cargo return if something went wrong with a soyuz on orbit, but not in an emergency situation requiring rapid egress..
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/09/2010 03:12 pm
but when he was asked about combining COTS 2/3 his smile disappeared and he looked extremely uncomfortable. His mouth gave the predictably non-committal answer, but his expression said, I'm really not happy with this idea.

He has little if any say.  Only Station gets to decide if someone approaches.  This question would be better asked to Suffredini and the resupply manager.

I wonder, then, if Alan's apparent discomfort means he knows that Suffredini et. al. are against the idea, and he's caught in the middle between them and SpaceX.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/09/2010 04:03 pm

It sounds like you're working under the assumption that the damage was a preexisting condition that simply wasn't caught.   What would your opinion on the matter be if the damage had developed after integration with the vehicle?  In that situation, it seems their process caught it at exactly the right time.  I don't believe they've released information that implies one situation over the other, so I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Still a process failure. 
1.  The damage occurred
2.   the incident that caused the damage wasn't caught right away or still is unknown.

Just to close this one out, it was not a "process failure," unless your definition of "process failure" is so broad as to be "anything that causes failure that could have been prevented,"

Quote

SpaceX traced the root cause of the cracks, located in the aft end of the nozzle, to a GN2 vent line that “caused flutter of the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, creating the cracks,” the company said in a statement.

Engineers cut off the bottom 4 ft. of the nozzle extension and corrected the root cause by diffusing the vent. “The extension increases the efficiency of the Merlin engine in vacuum and is installed by default on all upper-stage Merlin engines, but that efficiency increase is not required for this mission,” company spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said in a statement.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/spacex-dragon-spacecraft-successful-test-flight-101208.html
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: arkaska on 12/09/2010 04:10 pm
SpaceX is getting less NASA insight/oversight than either ESA or JAXA. ATV and HTV were under development for over a decade and NASA was involved at every step. In airport security terms, SpaceX got a couple of waves with the metal detector wand while ESA and JAXA got the full body-cavity search.

Is it NASA or Russia who decides when ATV was "good enough" to dock since it docks on the RS?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: hop on 12/09/2010 04:27 pm
Is it NASA or Russia who decides when ATV was "good enough" to dock since it docks on the RS?
Both. Dockings on the Russian side still have effects on the US side (structural loads, for example), and prox ops need to be safe for both segments.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 12/09/2010 04:35 pm
Quote
SpaceX traced the root cause of the cracks, located in the aft end of the nozzle, to a GN2 vent line that “caused flutter of the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, creating the cracks,” the company said in a statement.

If the nozzle is fragile enough to be damaged by a GN2 vent line, is it likely that it would also have failed under operation? I presume the stresses are substantial, even at the open end of the nozzle.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/09/2010 04:38 pm
Just to close this one out, it was not a "process failure," unless your definition of "process failure" is so broad as to be "anything that causes failure that could have been prevented,"

Quote

SpaceX traced the root cause of the cracks, located in the aft end of the nozzle, to a GN2 vent line that “caused flutter of the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, creating the cracks,” the company said in a statement.

Engineers cut off the bottom 4 ft. of the nozzle extension and corrected the root cause by diffusing the vent. “The extension increases the efficiency of the Merlin engine in vacuum and is installed by default on all upper-stage Merlin engines, but that efficiency increase is not required for this mission,” company spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said in a statement.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/spacex-dragon-spacecraft-successful-test-flight-101208.html

Yes, it was process failure.  A similar issue happened with a vent on the first launch and it disabled the roll control nozzle.  The proper process would been to look at all vents to prevent similar problems.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Dappa on 12/09/2010 04:39 pm
SpaceX traced the root cause of the cracks, located in the aft end of the nozzle, to a GN2 vent line that “caused flutter of the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, creating the cracks,” the company said in a statement.

If the nozzle is fragile enough to be damaged by a GN2 vent line, is it likely that it would also have failed under operation? I presume the stresses are substantial, even at the open end of the nozzle.

cheers, Martin
The stresses are quite low in that part of the nozzle, and it would probably not have failed under operation, according to Elon in yesterday's press conference.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/09/2010 04:42 pm
... and most crucially, 3. the opportunity to review COTS-2 prox-ops and rendezvous data outside of the time-pressure of a flight environment.

ATV 1 stayed on-orbit while that was done.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/09/2010 04:43 pm
Quote
SpaceX traced the root cause of the cracks, located in the aft end of the nozzle, to a GN2 vent line that “caused flutter of the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, creating the cracks,” the company said in a statement.

If the nozzle is fragile enough to be damaged by a GN2 vent line, is it likely that it would also have failed under operation? I presume the stresses are substantial, even at the open end of the nozzle.

cheers, Martin
If it hadn't been damaged by the GN2 vent, it wouldn't have failed under operation. After it was damaged, it still likely wouldn't have failed during operation (though risky). The stresses aren't substantial at the end of the nozzle.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/09/2010 04:48 pm
Quote
SpaceX traced the root cause of the cracks, located in the aft end of the nozzle, to a GN2 vent line that “caused flutter of the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, creating the cracks,” the company said in a statement.

If the nozzle is fragile enough to be damaged by a GN2 vent line, is it likely that it would also have failed under operation? I presume the stresses are substantial, even at the open end of the nozzle.

cheers, Martin

No, the stresses at the end of the nozzle are trivial. That's why the extention is so thin at the end. The crack was caused by GN2 impingement that caused "flutter", a local oscillation that was forceful enough to cause metal fatigue/cracking. SpaceX stated that the flight stresses were so low in that area of the nozzle that the cracks probably wouldn't even have caused a failure if they hadn't been caught.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mnagy on 12/09/2010 06:27 pm
The secret payload was a wheel of cheese. They posted photos on their facebook page.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/09/2010 06:51 pm
"Le Brouere" is a French cheese, but perhaps a big South African cheese would have been more appropriate...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jimvela on 12/09/2010 07:00 pm
Yes, it was process failure.  A similar issue happened with a vent on the first launch and it disabled the roll control nozzle.  The proper process would been to look at all vents to prevent similar problems.

Wasn't the vent that caused this issue re-located as well after the first F9 flight? (e.g. the fix for F9 F1 is part of the root cause for the nozzle problem on F9 F2).

Sometimes one system's fix is another system's root cause...
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/09/2010 07:07 pm
Wasn't the vent that caused this issue re-located as well after the first F9 flight? (e.g. the fix for F9 F1 is part of the root cause for the nozzle problem on F9 F2).

Are you thinking about the GOX vent on MVac?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: brihath on 12/09/2010 07:19 pm
The secret payload was a wheel of cheese. They posted photos on their facebook page.

This gives new meaning to the book "Who Moved my Cheese?"
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: go4mars on 12/09/2010 07:38 pm
It was like being parched and thirsty on a hot day.  Bored, unenthused.  All of a sudden sweet relief smashes through the sky from orbit to quench my thirst yesterday.  Just like the kids in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBeUGqeYsQg

Now I feel refreshed!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/09/2010 07:40 pm
The secret payload was a wheel of cheese. They posted photos on their facebook page.

Aren't you glad that thing didn't explode...  ;D
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/09/2010 07:41 pm
The secret payload was a wheel of cheese. They posted photos on their facebook page.

This gives new meaning to the book "Who Moved my Cheese?"

Evidently an inside joke, but some excerpts from the Wikipedia article on the Monty Python cheese sketch may give some clues:

"The idea for the sketch came after a day of shooting in Folkestone Harbour, where John Cleese threw up repeatedly. During the drive back, Graham Chapman said that Cleese should eat something and asked if he fancied anything; Cleese replied that he fancied a piece of cheese."

"Cleese remarks that it's not much of a cheese shop, but Palin insists it is the best in the district due to its cleanliness, to which Cleese replies "Well, it's certainly uncontaminated by cheese."
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/09/2010 08:00 pm
This may shed further light on the "Space cheese":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/8175347.stm
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/09/2010 08:03 pm
One crucial thing that has not been mentioned in this discussion is whether Dragon has enough consumables on board to do the fly-around check outs that ATV and HTV did on their first flights.  It could be impossible to combine the remaining Demo missions due to that limitation.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/09/2010 08:06 pm

Yes, it was process failure.  A similar issue happened with a vent on the first launch and it disabled the roll control nozzle.  The proper process would been to look at all vents to prevent similar problems.


sigh...

First I've heard of that. (thought SpaceX initially said it was a thermal issue on the 2nd stage roll control nozzle)...

Still not convinced this is a process issue either way.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/09/2010 08:09 pm

Yes, it was process failure.  A similar issue happened with a vent on the first launch and it disabled the roll control nozzle.  The proper process would been to look at all vents to prevent similar problems.


sigh...

First I've heard of that. (thought SpaceX initially said it was a thermal issue on the 2nd stage roll control nozzle)...

Still not convinced this is a process issue either way.

Well, it turned out to be a venting issue that caused the thermal problem: GOX venting onto the roll control actuator.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/09/2010 08:11 pm
Yes, IIRC up to 2 years in flight for Dragon Lab.  Mind you, checked their datasheet and it doesn't specify.

So far as lifeboat goes, I'd expect it wouldn't be more than 12 months.

There's a difference between being in orbit for a certain amount of time under SpaceX control and being attached to the Station for a certain amount of time.  In the latter, there are probability of no penetration requirements to be met.  In the former, SpaceX can do whatever it wants.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/09/2010 08:14 pm
One crucial thing that has not been mentioned in this discussion is whether Dragon has enough consumables on board to do the fly-around check outs that ATV and HTV did on their first flights.  It could be impossible to combine the remaining Demo missions due to that limitation.
If you mean propellant, then Dragon should have plenty. I've heard at least 700m/s.

As far as power and cooling... Dragon has a radiator and solar arrays on the trunk for the next flight, so those shouldn't be a problem (was this one powered by mice+cheese?).

What other consumables?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 12/09/2010 08:18 pm
One crucial thing that has not been mentioned in this discussion is whether Dragon has enough consumables on board to do the fly-around check outs that ATV and HTV did on their first flights.  It could be impossible to combine the remaining Demo missions due to that limitation.

What consumables are you referring to? The next mission will have solar arrays (plus batteries), so power will not be an issue.

Fuel is the only thing that springs to mind, but the craft is designed for many months of operation. (supposedly free-flight capable of up to two years in the case of DragonLab, even if that may require future enhancements) But the tanks should be good for several months at minimum, I would imagine.

As far as the amount of fuel, Robotbeat calculated in another thread that Dragon has 700+ m/s of Delta-V (more than twice of the Shuttle OMS?) , which should be plenty for a shake-out period before an ISS docking.

The only consumable issue that kept this Dragon flight so short was battery power.

EDIT: Oops, I guess several other people beat me to the response.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/09/2010 08:38 pm

Still not convinced this is a process issue either way.

The fact that it was was process issue has nothing to do with you being convinced.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/09/2010 08:40 pm
Never mind the fire, look at this image: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49739

No wonder why the left arm of the strongback was invisible in pad footage after liftoff. Looks like they have some beefing up to do.

I skimmed the thread again and didn't see this video (in regards to the T/E damage) mentioned, you can clearly see it starting at about :36 sec into the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_VkbB21sb4

Full-screen is better
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/09/2010 08:45 pm
Never mind the fire, look at this image: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49739

No wonder why the left arm of the strongback was invisible in pad footage after liftoff. Looks like they have some beefing up to do.

I skimmed the thread again and didn't see this video (in regards to the T/E damage) mentioned, you can clearly see it starting at about :36 sec into the video:
...
Woah, you're right! That is pretty crazy.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Namechange User on 12/09/2010 08:48 pm
One crucial thing that has not been mentioned in this discussion is whether Dragon has enough consumables on board to do the fly-around check outs that ATV and HTV did on their first flights.  It could be impossible to combine the remaining Demo missions due to that limitation.

What consumables are you referring to? The next mission will have solar arrays (plus batteries), so power will not be an issue.

Fuel is the only thing that springs to mind, but the craft is designed for many months of operation. (supposedly free-flight capable of up to two years in the case of DragonLab, even if that may require future enhancements) But the tanks should be good for several months at minimum, I would imagine.

As far as the amount of fuel, Robotbeat calculated in another thread that Dragon has 700+ m/s of Delta-V (more than twice of the Shuttle OMS?) , which should be plenty for a shake-out period before an ISS docking.

The only consumable issue that kept this Dragon flight so short was battery power.

EDIT: Oops, I guess several other people beat me to the response.

I'm really not seeing how what is presumably the total delta-v that the ship could provide in one "punch" is the relative metric in this case.

It really boils down to the size of the prop tanks and the flowrates of the engines versus the number of firings (and time) - by however many thrusters necessary - required to approach, rendezvous, station-keep with ISS, station-keep with ISS again when leaving, fly-around, sep-burn, any pre-deorbit maneuvers and the deorbit burn itself. 

I think you would find for a free-flight the attitude hold burns would be rather limited, especially if it can be "parked" in a semi-stable attitude. 
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Lars_J on 12/09/2010 08:53 pm
OV-106, I was just using the Delta-V as an illustration of the total amount of fuel available to the Draco's. (to illustrate that it should have plenty for a COTS2/3 combined mission with a shake-down) I did not mean to imply anything about "punch" or total thrust.

I agree that once you reach an orbit close to ISS, you should have to expend very little of that fuel (delta-V) to perform your station keeping tests.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: MP99 on 12/09/2010 09:58 pm
Quote
SpaceX traced the root cause of the cracks, located in the aft end of the nozzle, to a GN2 vent line that “caused flutter of the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, creating the cracks,” the company said in a statement.

If the nozzle is fragile enough to be damaged by a GN2 vent line, is it likely that it would also have failed under operation? I presume the stresses are substantial, even at the open end of the nozzle.

cheers, Martin

No, the stresses at the end of the nozzle are trivial. That's why the extention is so thin at the end. The crack was caused by GN2 impingement that caused "flutter", a local oscillation that was forceful enough to cause metal fatigue/cracking. SpaceX stated that the flight stresses were so low in that area of the nozzle that the cracks probably wouldn't even have caused a failure if they hadn't been caught.

One other issue I'm confused about.

I'd assumed that the closeout (and associated photography) happened in the hangar. But I would also assume that GN2 vent wouldn't be  active until Falcon is vertical on the pad.

One of those two assumptions would seem to be wrong - any thoughts on which one?

Thanks, Martin
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/09/2010 10:29 pm


One other issue I'm confused about.

I'd assumed that the closeout (and associated photography) happened in the hangar. But I would also assume that GN2 vent wouldn't be  active until Falcon is vertical on the pad.

One of those two assumptions would seem to be wrong - any thoughts on which one?

Thanks, Martin

I don't have any special insight into how that whole sequence went. Perhaps someone else does.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: tigerade on 12/10/2010 12:14 am
Here are some awesome photos from the mission.  I'm not sure if this has been posted yet or not:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/remotes/
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/10/2010 12:34 am
Here are some awesome photos from the mission.  I'm not sure if this has been posted yet or not:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/remotes/
Yes, they have. In fact, Chris Bergin kindly gave us a link to the full-resolution photos that SpaceX released to the media:
https://send.spacex.com/bds/Login.do?id=A043517252&p1=naj20dpsbfegcidgdlgffcj20
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: jabe on 12/10/2010 12:34 am
This gives new meaning to the book "Who Moved my Cheese?"
I think you may be right...it seems more in line what Elon wanted to say.. (even though i like the monty python idea better :) )
for those who aren't familiar check here..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Moved_My_Cheese

Elon wants more "Sniff and Scurry" people around!! Too many Hem and Haw's making all the noise...
jb
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: cuddihy on 12/10/2010 01:09 am

Still not convinced this is a process issue either way.

The fact that it was was process issue has nothing to do with you being convinced.

Sigh, I hated it when people who don't know what they are talking about continue to post.

Hey, this would be a pretty lonely forum if you had to have a KSC badge to post.

And by the way your inside access does't make you infallible either. IIRC you blamed it on a process issue without knowing what the problem was to begin with, "they built bad hardware, and put it on the vehicle," or words to that effect.

I work for the DoD, right now in IT rather than space (though I'm a space specialty and I've been a nuke in my early career.)

I've seen and participated in the full gamut of QA processes.

There are times when a problem really is processes. But I have also about had my fill of government management types who dont know how to finish anything but went to a CPI training for two weeks and thereafter think every problem is a process problem. (let me emphasize I'm not saying that's you) but I have wasted countless hours in critiques and RCAs where the cause of the problem was immediately obvious but nevertheless there we all were. I have seen  "lack of sufficient processes" used to excuse unqualified people performing incompetently, etc, just because it's too much of a pain to address the real issue.

I'm no SpaceX Koolade drinker, I've noticed their BS schedule projections, I'm skeptical about the viability of their pricing scheme, and Musk strikes me as a brilliant technical manager who's even better (or maybe just shameless) at over-selling his company's prospects. (the perfect entrepreneur for the age of Obama).

The point stands. Processes are not the cause of all failures, even if the correct process could have possibly prevented a particular failure does not mean it is the right thing to do.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Comga on 12/10/2010 04:57 am
Here are some awesome photos from the mission.  I'm not sure if this has been posted yet or not:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/remotes/
Yes, they have. In fact, Chris Bergin kindly gave us a link to the full-resolution photos that SpaceX released to the media:
https://send.spacex.com/bds/Login.do?id=A043517252&p1=naj20dpsbfegcidgdlgffcj20

So what is streaming off of or out of the second stage in Chris' photo 20101208_F9-002__1_Credit-Chris-Thompson_F01G0479_LG.jpg?  This is taken just as the fuel from the torn-away umbilical ignites.   Could it be more leaking fuel or is that a harmless condensation trail?  There is an even bigger white plume coming off of the first stage.  That is not igniting, despite being in contact with the flaming rocket exhaust, so I would think it must be condensation.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: ugordan on 12/10/2010 07:54 am
Could it be more leaking fuel or is that a harmless condensation trail?  There is an even bigger white plume coming off of the first stage.  That is not igniting, despite being in contact with the flaming rocket exhaust, so I would think it must be condensation.

Ice and condensed vapor.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/10/2010 10:50 am

And by the way your inside access does't make you infallible either. IIRC you blamed it on a process issue without knowing what the problem was to begin with, "they built bad hardware, and put it on the vehicle," or words to that effect.


Because it has been evident in many other places wrt Spacex
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/10/2010 11:46 am
SFN article: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/101209reaction/

"...the spacecraft landed right on target in the Pacific Ocean. SpaceX teams arrived at the floating capsule a few minutes later. Officials planned to load the craft on a barge steaming for California, then the company will transport the Dragon to a Texas test facility for post-flight inspections."

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Antares on 12/10/2010 04:53 pm
I'd assumed that the closeout (and associated photography) happened in the hangar. But I would also assume that GN2 vent wouldn't be  active until Falcon is vertical on the pad.

One of those two assumptions would seem to be wrong - any thoughts on which one?

This is a good spot to correct myself because I had made the same assumption about "closeout" photos, which I now think is the wrong term.  I'd blamed it on just-in-time inspection of closeout photos of a nozzle weld; but now that we've seen them, I think it was a routine inspection of the hardware after the weekend tests.  Then, they only took targeted photos of the obviously suspect nozzle condition - primarily to send back to folks in Hawthorne who weren't making the trip.  Something got lost in translation between the operators and the people writing the press releases.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Kabloona on 12/10/2010 09:35 pm
I'd assumed that the closeout (and associated photography) happened in the hangar. But I would also assume that GN2 vent wouldn't be  active until Falcon is vertical on the pad.

One of those two assumptions would seem to be wrong - any thoughts on which one?

This is a good spot to correct myself because I had made the same assumption about "closeout" photos, which I now think is the wrong term.  I'd blamed it on just-in-time inspection of closeout photos of a nozzle weld; but now that we've seen them, I think it was a routine inspection of the hardware after the weekend tests.  Then, they only took targeted photos of the obviously suspect nozzle condition - primarily to send back to folks in Hawthorne who weren't making the trip.  Something got lost in translation between the operators and the people writing the press releases.

That makes more sense. As we saw later, the cracks were so conspicuous that they must have been seen right away upon inspection with a naked eyeball.

Maybe a more accurate press release would have said "A visual  inspection after the static fire and before final closeout of the interstage revealed cracks in the nozzle extension. The affected areas were photographed for further assessment by engineers in Hawthorne."
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: docmordrid on 12/11/2010 05:30 am
On another tack....what the Army sat on COTS-1 is up to -

SMDC-ONE  (Space and Missile Defense Command - Operational Nanosatellite Effect)
(http://defense-update.com/images_new2/smdc_one_nanosat.jpg)

SatNews.... (http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=624809632)

Quote
>
"The launch and deployment of the first SMDC-ONE nanosatellites is intended to demonstrate the concept of sending and receiving data from unattended ground sensors using small, low-cost, low earth orbit satellites," said Lt. Gen. Kevin T. Campbell, commanding general, Army Space and Missile Defense Command.
>
The ultimate goal is to have satellites that cost around $300,000 each and are either secondary payloads aboard other rockets — as in Wednesday's SpaceX launch —- or that could be put in orbit virtually on demand by a new class of smaller boosters....
>
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 12/11/2010 10:40 am

And by the way your inside access does't make you infallible either. IIRC you blamed it on a process issue without knowing what the problem was to begin with, "they built bad hardware, and put it on the vehicle," or words to that effect.


Because it has been evident in many other places wrt Spacex
It wasn't the first time that's happened and it won't be the last so to single out SpaceX isn't exactly fair.  I think that they're entitled to do this their way.  It's their money plus NASA's and NASA seems ok with the way they're going at this point anyway.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/11/2010 11:50 am

It wasn't the first time that's happened and it won't be the last so to single out SpaceX isn't exactly fair.  I think that they're entitled to do this their way.  It's their money plus NASA's and NASA seems ok with the way they're going at this point anyway.

No, "NASA" is not ok with it.  Only COTS is ok with the way they are going. Station logistics isn't going to send any high dollar items for awhile, hence Tang, tee shirts and toilet paper can take some higher risks. 

It isn't fair to single out Spacex has the next best thing to slice bread either.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/11/2010 12:00 pm

It wasn't the first time that's happened and it won't be the last so to single out SpaceX isn't exactly fair.  I think that they're entitled to do this their way.  It's their money plus NASA's and NASA seems ok with the way they're going at this point anyway.

No, "NASA" is not ok with it.  Only COTS is ok with the way they are going. Station logistics isn't going to send any high dollar items for awhile, hence Tang, tee shirts and toilet paper can take some higher risks. 

It isn't fair to single out Spacex has the next best thing to slice bread either.

Also low value items like food, water, uniforms are rather important.

Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/11/2010 12:11 pm

It wasn't the first time that's happened and it won't be the last so to single out SpaceX isn't exactly fair.  I think that they're entitled to do this their way.  It's their money plus NASA's and NASA seems ok with the way they're going at this point anyway.

No, "NASA" is not ok with it.  Only COTS is ok with the way they are going. Station logistics isn't going to send any high dollar items for awhile, hence Tang, tee shirts and toilet paper can take some higher risks. 

It isn't fair to single out Spacex has the next best thing to slice bread either.

Also low value items like food, water, uniforms are rather important.


Not on a per launch basis.  A mission failure can be over come easily by flying the next mission.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/11/2010 12:16 pm

Not on a per launch basis.  A mission failure can be over come easily by flying the next mission.

Which is why they are taking the risk with Space X. If it works lots of up side and some possiblity of recovery if it fails.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Jim on 12/11/2010 12:24 pm

Not on a per launch basis.  A mission failure can be over come easily by flying the next mission.

Which is why they are taking the risk with Space X. If it works lots of up side and some possiblity of recovery if it fails.

My point is that this is ok with the NASA station community but not the rest of NASA that uses launch vehicles.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: duane on 12/11/2010 08:21 pm
Sorry just a aviation/space watcher not in the biz here

Seems there is a lot of process engineering bickering going on about Spacex. Just reminder that Nasa HSF is not immune from process failure specifically in regards to two shuttle vehicles and 14 deaths.

Hopefully SpaceX gets to a high level of process maturity where lives will not be risked if they ever commit to a crewed version, and we never lose anymore crews on Nasa human spaceflight missions

Just some $0.02 from a life long space fan!
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/11/2010 08:26 pm
My point is that this is ok with the NASA station community but not the rest of NASA that uses launch vehicles.

But isn't the point to start with low value cargo to get the bugs out of the system and establish a reliability record before trying manned launches or expensive satellites?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 12/11/2010 11:05 pm
Here's the kmz file (as of Dec 11) converted to a CSV for anyone who's interested.

Thanks hop!
A quick calculation produces

13.1 km average Soyuz distance  from aim point to actual landing
 2.7 km minimum distance   
10.1 km  Standard deviation (although StDev is not an ideal measure for what's probably a Poisson distribution )

So Dragon, on its first flight, is staid to have come back with one third the offset of the most accurate Soyuz flight, and 6% of the average offset.

A blind Rocky-the-Flying-Squirrel? 
"Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!"
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 12/11/2010 11:54 pm
Wow, that really puts the accuracy into perspective.

What is the median and standard deviation?
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/12/2010 02:45 am

Not on a per launch basis.  A mission failure can be over come easily by flying the next mission.

Which is why they are taking the risk with Space X. If it works lots of up side and some possiblity of recovery if it fails.

They arent "taking the risk" with spaceX, OSC has another contract.  If they really were, then there would not be another contract.
Title: Re: COTS Demo 1
Post by: beancounter on 12/12/2010 04:42 am

Not on a per launch basis.  A mission failure can be over come easily by flying the next mission.

Which is why they are taking the risk with Space X. If it works lots of up side and some possiblity of recovery if it fails.

My point is that this is ok with the NASA station community but not the rest of NASA that uses launch vehicles.

My point is that NASA does it's business in a certain way and SpaceX has chosen to undertake it's business in another way.  SpaceX being in 'business' with limited funds accepts certain risks as being part of their business which NASA being government funded does not or apparently not because as another poster has pointed out (and something I thought didn't necessarily need pointing out) they have not been immune to failures.
We may see SpaceX change their approaches but probably not since these wouldn't necesssarily be in the public arena.  I would say that the truth will be in their continued success or otherwise with NASA and other customers.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/12/2010 06:34 am
Wow, that really puts the accuracy into perspective.

What is the median and standard deviation?
Well, it does seem that their existing system does better than Soyuz (if the 800m is correct), which doesn't sound too impossible if you have, say, an improved gyro with less drift (for instance) or use GPS in addition to the gyro.

Remember, the terminal rocket guidance system would have to adjust for windage anyways, so it doesn't seem impossible to me that they could land accurately. Not at all.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: wintermuted on 12/12/2010 09:13 am
Not to beat the "process discussion" horse to death, but I think there are 2 factors which haven't been mentioned here that contribute to their ability to act quickly when a problem occurs: the relative newness of the company, and their level of vertical integration.  When they saw the cracks in the nozzle, they probably could have had everyone that ever worked on the design in a conference room within 5 minutes.  Because of the "newness" it's less likely that the employees associated with a particular part have retired or moved on. 

On top of that, they also all work directly for SpaceX and not a sub-contractor.  Imagine if the nozzle was designed and built by an outside vendor, and SpaceX had to call them up and say "Hey is it okay to fly this with cracks, or can we maybe trim it down?".   There's very little reason an outside vendor would suggest anything other than replacing it with a new one - they have no motivation to assume any more risk, and a big motive to sell another nozzle.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: cuddihy on 12/12/2010 05:55 pm
Not to beat the "process discussion" horse to death, but I think there are 2 factors which haven't been mentioned here that contribute to their ability to act quickly when a problem occurs: the relative newness of the company, and their level of vertical integration.  When they saw the cracks in the nozzle, they probably could have had everyone that ever worked on the design in a conference room within 5 minutes.  Because of the "newness" it's less likely that the employees associated with a particular part have retired or moved on. 

On top of that, they also all work directly for SpaceX and not a sub-contractor.  Imagine if the nozzle was designed and built by an outside vendor, and SpaceX had to call them up and say "Hey is it okay to fly this with cracks, or can we maybe trim it down?".   There's very little reason an outside vendor would suggest anything other than replacing it with a new one - they have no motivation to assume any more risk, and a big motive to sell another nozzle.


I think these are excellent points that go to the heart of what the disagreement is about. Nasa's QA and processes are built around two assumptions common in DoD and government: 1. That no one is irreplaceable--I.e. That processes have to work so that anyone "sufficiently knowledgeable" can do them and get the exact same output. And 2. That decisions made today will have unforeseen consequences tomorrow, processes are built to work inbasically every conceivable "reasonable" set of starting conditions. Great, except those are very expensive overburden on the system.

SpaceX does not follow these assumptions, and we will see how that works out over the long haul.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Jim on 12/12/2010 06:05 pm

I think these are excellent points that go to the heart of what the disagreement is about. Nasa's QA and processes are built around two assumptions common in DoD and government: 1. That no one is irreplaceable--I.e. That processes have to work so that anyone "sufficiently knowledgeable" can do them and get the exact same output. And 2. That decisions made today will have unforeseen consequences tomorrow, processes are built to work inbasically every conceivable "reasonable" set of starting conditions. Great, except those are very expensive overburden on the system.

SpaceX does not follow these assumptions, and we will see how that works out over the long haul.

That will be the downfall and the start of increased costs.  People have to be replaced
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: simcosmos on 12/12/2010 06:10 pm
I. Falcon9-Dragon COTS Demo1: Performance and Trajectory Reconstruction (?)

Like Ed Kyle (on the next link), I have also been trying to 'reverse calculate' the numbers of the recent COTS Demo 1 F9-Dragon flight:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23516.msg669446#msg669446

Such virtual reconstruction is not an immediate thing to do, despite there is a press kit as well some information available at SpaceX's site and despite there is a very cool live recorded video of the flight.

Due to the work-in-progress going on at SpaceX, there are a number of input parameters which are either scattered, not-final / uncertain or unknown and which have impact on any try at an analysis. On top of that, and in what relates to this specific COTS D1 flight, there was also the second stage nozzle fix :) (adding yet another layer of uncertainty for upper stage engine 'simulation').


Moving on: I think that might be on a (preliminary) path that might very roughly replicate SpaceX's COTS D1  performance / trajectory... At least it looks very cool when running the simulation (in Orbiter Space Flight Simulator) side-by-side with the SpaceX recorded video: with one or another deviation, the main ascent events seem to be +/- well synchronized with the live video (ignition sequence, liftoff, mach1, maxQ, staging, aero-covers jettison, rough velocity calls vs altitude vs time)...

... Have kind of built two main families of input assumptions: the differences between such two families are on stage dry masses, engine parameters for first and second stage, Dragon mass (capsule + prop + trunk + sats + nose cover) and also on some things related with selected parts of the ascent profile (pitch commands).

In one case I achieved something like 300 x 287 km / 34.63 inc. with cutoff at apogee... on another case / on another separated 'family' of input parameters - and related virtual telemetry output - achieved something like 309 x 281km, 34.45 inc, with cutoff at perigee...). This while protecting for upper stage performance to achieve ~11000 km apogee (post Dragon Capsule and post cubesats jettison).


All this might probably deserve its own thread (?), if someone also wishes to further discuss a number of input parameters and virtual telemetry outputs in order to try to better understand SpaceX's COTS D1 flight (and perhaps also in order to build some 'predictive' simulation background for COTS Demo 2?).

For the moment would like to ask if someone beyond me (and apparently Ed Kyle) also made a little of informal / independent technical brainstorm about SpaceX's COTS Demo 1 flight (?)



II. In particular – and to start - I would be mostly interested on reading further comments related with the Falcon9 upper stage engine (thrust / ISP for the 'shaved' engine):

II.a) On one of the numerical sets of  preliminary simulations here, I have assumed an ISP of ~328s for such upper stage engine.

Note: on the press kit the upper stage ISP was given at 336s... on SpaceX's site, the ISP is expected at 342s (for the 'blockII' engine variant?); as a side note, the max. ISP of the first stage engines was simulated between 294s and 304s (depending of specific set of assumptions).

So, as a starting point, I roughly assume that, on COTS D1 flight, the upper stage engine ISP was higher than 304s and lower than 336s... I then 'chose' two numbers (328s and also a lower value) for each main family set of assumptions.


II.b) Regarding upper stage thrust, assumed here ~411.5 kN (on one set of assumptions, per the official COTS D1 press kit)... but would like to ask if someone has any observation regarding eventual throttling procedures on COTS D1 upper stage portion of the flight... although there aren't any calls for that on the video (?) (by the way, yes, I have simulated MECO1 and MECO2 for the first stage). 

This 'thrust' question, together with the ISP question, is also related with the total propellants amount assumed for the upper stage... (depending of family of assumptions - and interaction with other parameters - I have assumed from ~40400 kg up to 43200 kg or so...).


As noted in the start, this attempt to reconstruct SpaceX's COTS1 flight is not trivial due to both the specificity around such flight (such as the nozzle 'fix', a probably light Dragon configuration, etc) as well due to some key parameters being unknown... although some things could be kind of extrapolated by crossing available information (and using the ascent video).

Thanks,
António
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: martin hegedus on 12/13/2010 04:47 pm
I. Falcon9-Dragon COTS Demo1: Performance and Trajectory Reconstruction (?)

...

All this might probably deserve its own thread (?), if someone also wishes to further discuss a number of input parameters and virtual telemetry outputs in order to try to better understand SpaceX's COTS D1 flight (and perhaps also in order to build some 'predictive' simulation background for COTS Demo 2?).

For the moment would like to ask if someone beyond me (and apparently Ed Kyle) also made a little of informal / independent technical brainstorm about SpaceX's COTS Demo 1 flight (?)

...

Thanks,
António

I'm interested in learning more, contributing 2 cents here and there, and seeing where this goes.  I figure this would be like the "NASA model building thread," but geared towards numerical modeling.  I don't think the thread will advance very fast, but that is OK.

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: simcosmos on 12/19/2010 04:50 pm
I. Falcon9-Dragon COTS Demo1: Performance and Trajectory Reconstruction (?)

...

All this might probably deserve its own thread (?), if someone also wishes to further discuss a number of input parameters and virtual telemetry outputs in order to try to better understand SpaceX's COTS D1 flight (and perhaps also in order to build some 'predictive' simulation background for COTS Demo 2?).

For the moment would like to ask if someone beyond me (and apparently Ed Kyle) also made a little of informal / independent technical brainstorm about SpaceX's COTS Demo 1 flight (?)

...

Thanks,
António

I'm interested in learning more, contributing 2 cents here and there, and seeing where this goes.  I figure this would be like the "NASA model building thread," but geared towards numerical modeling.  I don't think the thread will advance very fast, but that is OK.


*BUMP*

Thanks for the reply Martin!

I. It seems to be like you wrote, there does not seem to exist a very active (forum) interest about what I have proposed and, in the end, it might result on a slow thread because:

a) as 'traditional' of me on those kind of threads, I like to explicitly reference the starting assumptions as well properly reference / link to source data (else there isn't a minimum of standardization for others to follow or comment the assumptions and results)...

b)  there is also the added difficulty expressed on the previous post: there are a number of numerical inputs which aren't clearly or readily available from SpaceX... This would then require educated guesses and crossing pieces of scattered information with no guarantee that the simulation would represent well enough (always depending of constraints and objectives) the real hardware (unless someone from SpaceX would like to participate with a few hints).


Both of the above means extra time and dedication to prepare and share public information under the form of clear and organized as possible written posts. Only to give an example, I currently see a number of posts on NSF forums about Falcon9, Falcon9 eventual evolution paths and about Dragon spacecraft current and eventual future capabilities... On my opinion, it would perhaps be nice to have some numerical standardization (and confirmation) of a few of the assumptions being made before trying to extrapolate into more 'advanced' scenarios.


Summing up, from this side, I might then probably continue to research and document this (Falcon9 + Dragon specifications / mission capabilities / eventual evolution) on a more private way (with related simulation work) before sharing those musings on a more public way, mostly because anticipate (at least is the impression that have, when comparing with some past interventions on other threads) that I would probably be (one of) the main contributor(s) of such eventual thread (and if that would be the case, then would need  extra time to properly prepare and 'study' things...).


II. Only as reference, a few of the topics being 'researched' here are:

- virtual reconstruction of SpaceX COTS Demo1 flight (launcher properties, trajectory, mission procedures – including release of cubesats – and, last but not least, Dragon  capsule properties for such specific flight)...

- another topic being studied is Falcon9 'block1' vs 'block2' expected properties vs 'full' cargo Dragon  vs crewed Dragon spacecraft vs mission modes (probably including a comparison between a standard LAS design and an integrated abort system for Dragon)...

- yet another topic of interest is related with the study of Falcon9 first stage recovery, in particular when comparing the virtual apogee preliminary 'results' of the past Demo1 flight with other assumptions...

- there are also a number of extra topics related with such custom musings, research, study, simulations... but again, that would require extra time (and might be matter of an eventual future thread, if opening it at all).   


III. Meanwhile, I hope it is OK if I attach a short video with a clumsy preview of some of the performance / trajectory simulation work done here about SpaceX Falcon9-Dragon COTS Demo1 (the video has been made a few minutes ago but the performance files already have quite a few days... although haven't returned to them yet).

I have used older 3D models from an already existing Orbiter addon (Space-X launchers and Dragon v0.58 by 'Glider' / 'MajorTom') but have updated the 3D models materials properties and textures  (not sure if will make my own 3D models, at least for the rocket) as well have seriously revised (fresh start) the performance / trajectory implementation accordingly to my implementation methodologies, using Vinka's generic dlls)...

As also previously noted, the objective is to replicate the recent flight as best as possible so that can then hopefully have a more solid simulation departure point to adapt for eventual future SpaceX COTS demo flights (and other hardware evolution musings)...

To keep the video short, will only upload the ascent part that goes from MECO1, MECO2, staging, upper stage ignition to aero covers jettison: things are not perfectly 'coded' yet (still a lot of stuff to tweak / improve on the input parameters and ascent guidance file), neither perfectly synchronized, but it might still be interesting to see, despite the lack of careful script / edition an despite the final encoding compression factor, to keep the file size down (original video capture of the simulator session was at 800x600... I could use the same source files to produce a video with an higher resolution but that would take ~19MB... if someone from SpaceX wishes, just for fun, to have this preliminary video on such slightly higher resolution, feel free to PM).

Thanks,
António 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: TimL on 12/19/2010 06:27 pm
Antonio,

I think this is a great endeavor but without a little more ascent data, you have to rely on too much speculation. I'm having trouble trying to determining if the weight of the dragon is 4,300 without the trunk attached or with the trunk attached. A lot of SpaceX's literature is a little vague on this, but it makes a big difference on performance profiles. Most of the Orbiter add-ons are all over the place on values, not to mentions the config files are a nightmare with a lot of typos and incorrect directory pointers.

TimL
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: martin hegedus on 12/19/2010 08:31 pm

I. It seems to be like you wrote, there does not seem to exist a very active (forum) interest about what I have proposed and, in the end, it might result on a slow thread because:


I do think there is an interest in regards to seeing the results and discussing them intellectually.  However, in regards to generating the technical information to the fidelity you (and I) seem to be interested in, some ingredient seems, to me, to be missing (outside of a small set of individuals).  The desire is out there.  The technical skill is out there.  But ..., I just can't put my finger on it.

Quote
b)  there is also the added difficulty expressed on the previous post: there are a number of numerical inputs which aren't clearly or readily available from SpaceX... This would then require educated guesses and crossing pieces of scattered information with no guarantee that the simulation would represent well enough (always depending of constraints and objectives) the real hardware (unless someone from SpaceX would like to participate with a few hints).

True.  That is just the way it is and needs to be accepted to keep moving.

Quote
Both of the above means extra time and dedication to prepare and share public information under the form of clear and organized as possible written posts. Only to give an example, I currently see a number of posts on NSF forums about Falcon9, Falcon9 eventual evolution paths and about Dragon spacecraft current and eventual future capabilities... On my opinion, it would perhaps be nice to have some numerical standardization (and confirmation) of a few of the assumptions being made before trying to extrapolate into more 'advanced' scenarios.

LOL, oh I wish that would come to pass.  But I don't think that will happen, at least to the extent you are wishing for.  And maybe the format of this forum doesn't facilitate that.  It would be nice to have a cheat sheet where people could easily go and get current up to date data rather than digging through posts.  Maybe two threads could be created, one would only contain numerical data and pure analysis and the other would contain discussion.

Quote
Summing up, from this side, I might then probably continue to research and document this (Falcon9 + Dragon specifications / mission capabilities / eventual evolution) on a more private way (with related simulation work) before sharing those musings on a more public way, mostly because anticipate (at least is the impression that have, when comparing with some past interventions on other threads) that I would probably be (one of) the main contributor(s) of such eventual thread (and if that would be the case, then would need  extra time to properly prepare and 'study' things...).

I would encourage to be as public as possible, even if something isn't ready for prime time.  I would also discourage PMing.  This way everyone knows what is going on and if someone needs to put a stop to something or moderate where things are going, then they can.  For example, a while back when discussing trajectory optimization codes Chuck mentioned that it would be nice to have hooks in it for Monte Carlo simulations.  And, I agree, it would be cool to have that to be able to model environmental effects such as winds at altitude.  And it is not difficult to do.  However, it also puts such an analysis methodology clearly in the realm of targeting, and that is a no-no.

Quote
III. Meanwhile, I hope it is OK if I attach a short video

Thanks,
António 

Thanks.  Next up, I need to find a wmv viewer for my Linux box.

Edit:  Go for it, start the thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: docmordrid on 12/20/2010 05:28 am
Try VLAN.  If it can't play a format under Linux odds are nothing else will.

http://www.videolan.org/index.html

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.php?cat=video
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Skyrocket on 12/20/2010 03:05 pm
Concerning the CubeSats:

I've got confirmation from LANL, that they had four (not two) Cubesats on this mission. That is consistent with they eight objects tracked besides Dragon-C1 and the second stage.

Unfortunately no names or mission descriptions have been released by now.

Quote
We are happy to note that we successfully deployed four tiny experimental "cubeSats" on the Falcon-9 launch, but we are not releasing the names or mission descriptions on these devices at this time.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: docmordrid on 12/20/2010 03:28 pm
Does that include the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command - Operational Nanosatellite Effect, aka SMDC-ONE, written up on SatNews (http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=624809632) or was it #5?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Skyrocket on 12/20/2010 04:02 pm
Does that include the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command - Operational Nanosatellite Effect, aka SMDC-ONE, written up on SatNews (http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=624809632) or was it #5?

The payloads on this launch were:

Dragon C1
SMDC-ONE 1 (3-Unit Cubesat)
QbX 1 (3-Unit Cubesat)
QbX 2 (3-Unit Cubesat)
CAERUS-Mayflower (3-Unit Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 1" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 2" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 3" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 4" (unknown type Cubesat)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: docmordrid on 12/20/2010 04:41 pm
FWIW, from last falls American Geophysical Union pre-meeting synopsis where LANL gave a cubesat presentation -

Quote
>
 This presentation will highlight LANL techniques for the adaptation of instruments to a scalable form factor; aiming to reduce non-recoverable engineering costs by identifying and implementing modularity in instrument design. In addition, we have developed models for the LEO environment fluxes that can be used by instrument designers for the proper scaling of design parameters. An example of this approach to making energetic particle measurements at LEO will be presented. Also, preliminary ideas for applying the unique Cubesat paradigm of multipoint, but reduced resolution measurements to key questions of the dynamic space environment will be explored.
>
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: KSC Sage on 12/20/2010 08:14 pm
Does that include the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command - Operational Nanosatellite Effect, aka SMDC-ONE, written up on SatNews (http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=624809632) or was it #5?

The payloads on this launch were:

Dragon C1
SMDC-ONE 1 (3-Unit Cubesat)
QbX 1 (3-Unit Cubesat)
QbX 2 (3-Unit Cubesat)
CAERUS-Mayflower (3-Unit Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 1" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 2" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 3" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 4" (unknown type Cubesat)


One was from Los Alamos labs.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Antares on 12/20/2010 08:17 pm
LANL = Los Alamos National Labs  ::)

Here's your sign ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: markododa on 12/23/2010 07:10 am
watching the press conference there is a mentioning that in order for bidirectional communication with dragon positioning of the spacecraft was needed, or is it just a bigger bandwith antena ? (having to position the spacecraft for sending commands makes no sense)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: rklaehn on 12/23/2010 08:12 am
watching the press conference there is a mentioning that in order for bidirectional communication with dragon positioning of the spacecraft was needed, or is it just a bigger bandwith antena ? (having to position the spacecraft for sending commands makes no sense)

They were talking about "directional TDRSS" connections. The TDRS satellites are in GEO, so an omnidirectional antenna will not have a high data rate. But pointing an antenna at a GEO satellite from an object in LEO requires precise knowledge and control of the spacecraft attitude. So it is a major accomplishment.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 12/23/2010 07:27 pm
watching the press conference there is a mentioning that in order for bidirectional communication with dragon positioning of the spacecraft was needed, or is it just a bigger bandwith antena ? (having to position the spacecraft for sending commands makes no sense)

They were talking about "directional TDRSS" connections. The TDRS satellites are in GEO, so an omnidirectional antenna will not have a high data rate. But pointing an antenna at a GEO satellite from an object in LEO requires precise knowledge and control of the spacecraft attitude. So it is a major accomplishment.

 I put Ku band dishes on ships that stay within 1/2 degree while pitching and rolling in heavy seas. It should be a lot easier on a smoothly moving spacecraft. I don't know much about orbital GPS, but downstairs, a three antenna system can give you pretty precise orientation data.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/23/2010 07:39 pm
Besides that, there are actually omnidirectional TDRSS antennae (if I recall correctly). I don't remember if Dragon was fitted with one in addition to the directional one. A directional one could do much more bandwidth for the same power, of course.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: SpacexULA on 12/23/2010 11:02 pm
Does that include the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command - Operational Nanosatellite Effect, aka SMDC-ONE, written up on SatNews (http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=624809632) or was it #5?

The payloads on this launch were:

Dragon C1
SMDC-ONE 1 (3-Unit Cubesat)
QbX 1 (3-Unit Cubesat)
QbX 2 (3-Unit Cubesat)
CAERUS-Mayflower (3-Unit Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 1" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 2" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 3" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 4" (unknown type Cubesat)


I had no clue that many cubesats where deployed, I wonder if this is going to be the normal amount for the COTS/CRS missions or if the number will increase/decrease.

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: jcm on 12/23/2010 11:23 pm
Does that include the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command - Operational Nanosatellite Effect, aka SMDC-ONE, written up on SatNews (http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=624809632) or was it #5?

The payloads on this launch were:

Dragon C1
SMDC-ONE 1 (3-Unit Cubesat)
QbX 1 (3-Unit Cubesat)
QbX 2 (3-Unit Cubesat)
CAERUS-Mayflower (3-Unit Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 1" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 2" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 3" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 4" (unknown type Cubesat)


I had no clue that many cubesats where deployed, I wonder if this is going to be the normal amount for the COTS/CRS missions or if the number will increase/decrease.



LANL Cubesats are apparently called Perseus 000 to Perseus 003.
Space-Track has ids as follows



37245   QBX2   2010-066B   US   2010-12-08   
37246   SMDC ONE   2010-066C   US   2010-12-08   
37247   PERSEUS 003   2010-066D   US   2010-12-08   
37248   PERSEUS 001   2010-066E   US   2010-12-08   
37249   QBX1   2010-066F   US   2010-12-08   
37250   PERSEUS 002   2010-066G   US   2010-12-08   
37251   PERSEUS 000   2010-066H   US   2010-12-08   
37252   MAYFLOWER   2010-066J   US   2010-12-08
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: hernick on 12/23/2010 11:35 pm
Does that include the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command - Operational Nanosatellite Effect, aka SMDC-ONE, written up on SatNews (http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=624809632) or was it #5?

The payloads on this launch were:

Dragon C1
SMDC-ONE 1 (3-Unit Cubesat)
QbX 1 (3-Unit Cubesat)
QbX 2 (3-Unit Cubesat)
CAERUS-Mayflower (3-Unit Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 1" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 2" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 3" (unknown type Cubesat)
"LANL-Cubesat 4" (unknown type Cubesat)


I had no clue that many cubesats where deployed, I wonder if this is going to be the normal amount for the COTS/CRS missions or if the number will increase/decrease.



LANL Cubesats are apparently called Perseus 000 to Perseus 003.
Space-Track has ids as follows



37245   QBX2   2010-066B   US   2010-12-08   
37246   SMDC ONE   2010-066C   US   2010-12-08   
37247   PERSEUS 003   2010-066D   US   2010-12-08   
37248   PERSEUS 001   2010-066E   US   2010-12-08   
37249   QBX1   2010-066F   US   2010-12-08   
37250   PERSEUS 002   2010-066G   US   2010-12-08   
37251   PERSEUS 000   2010-066H   US   2010-12-08   
37252   MAYFLOWER   2010-066J   US   2010-12-08
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/24/2010 01:51 am
I had no clue that many cubesats where deployed, I wonder if this is going to be the normal amount for the COTS/CRS missions or if the number will increase/decrease.

I doubt it.  This test flight served as a "target of opportunity" for these payloads, since Dragon C1 did not have a fully equipped "trunk", the trunk remained connected to the upper stage, and the mission flew into a relatively low inclination orbit. These payloads probably replaced some of the mass that will be added to the trunk when it is equipped with solar panels, etc.  Also, the ISS partners probably don't want to see a lot of microsats deployed into an ISS inclination orbit.

 - Ed kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: spacetraveler on 12/24/2010 02:39 am
Does anyone know when we might reasonably expect NASA to make their decision on combining COTS 2 and 3?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: go4mars on 12/24/2010 04:22 am
since Dragon C1 did not have a fully equipped "trunk", the trunk remained connected to the upper stage, and the mission flew into a relatively low inclination orbit.  - Ed kyle

Did the cubes deploy right after the dragon flew the nest, or did they wait until after the next US burn?

Also, regarding a cube named "Mayflower";   Any ideas what that one was?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 12/24/2010 09:52 am
Did the cubes deploy right after the dragon flew the nest, or did they wait until after the next US burn?

Before the restart.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Skyrocket on 12/24/2010 10:25 am
Also, regarding a cube named "Mayflower";   Any ideas what that one was?

Mayflower is a 2 units technology testbed for cubesat technologies by Novaworks of Northrop Grumman. it is integrated with the Caerus 1 unit cubesat to form a 3 unit satellite.

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/mayflower-caerus.htm
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: jcm on 12/24/2010 10:25 am
since Dragon C1 did not have a fully equipped "trunk", the trunk remained connected to the upper stage, and the mission flew into a relatively low inclination orbit.  - Ed kyle

Did the cubes deploy right after the dragon flew the nest, or did they wait until after the next US burn?

Also, regarding a cube named "Mayflower";   Any ideas what that one was?


Caerus/Mayflower is an experiment for Northrop Grumman
NovaWorks and the University of Southern California, a 3U cubesat made
up of the 2U (double cube) Mayflower Next Generation Technology Nanosat
from Northrop Grumman and a 1U (single cube) from USC's engineering   
schools in Los Angeles and Marina del Rey, with deployable solar panels.   

Does anyone know anything about NG NovaWorks? Are they part of NG Redondo Beach, or at a separate location? They don't seem to have a web presence.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ChefPat on 12/24/2010 01:40 pm
Does anyone know when we might reasonably expect NASA to make their decision on combining COTS 2 and 3?
After it's already in orbit. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: markododa on 12/24/2010 01:49 pm
Does anyone know when we might reasonably expect NASA to make their decision on combining COTS 2 and 3?
After it's already in orbit. ;)

Yes, the dragon C2 milestones will be accomplished and dragon will then wait in orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 12/24/2010 04:50 pm
Does anyone know when we might reasonably expect NASA to make their decision on combining COTS 2 and 3?
After it's already in orbit. ;)

 That might not be too far off. They could prepare for a combined mission that would depend on all the COTS 2 goals being met before docking is approved. If it's thumbs down for any reason, then COTS 3 is needed.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kraisee on 12/24/2010 06:01 pm
If we are very lucky, NASA may publicly indicate a willingness to review, before the flight actually takes place.

They might put a mention into the COTS-2 flight plan to the effect of "if all COTS-2 mission objectives are met, then a review will take place on flight day X to consider proceeding directly into COTS-3 mission objectives before the spacecraft is de-orbited".

I suspect we won't see much, until she's actually up there, having completed all her primary tasks, and Space-X are just waiting for permission to proceed further...

Ross.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: R.Simko on 12/26/2010 02:04 am
If we are very lucky, NASA may publicly indicate a willingness to review, before the flight actually takes place.

They might put a mention into the COTS-2 flight plan to the effect of "if all COTS-2 mission objectives are met, then a review will take place on flight day X to consider proceeding directly into COTS-3 mission objectives before the spacecraft is de-orbited".

I suspect we won't see much, until she's actually up there, having completed all her primary tasks, and Space-X are just waiting for permission to proceed further...

Ross.

I guess that if there is any chance of Dragon being allowed to dock with the ISS on the next COTS flight, then they should bring cargo with them.  The cargo would be low cost, so if docking doesn't happen for any reason, there is not much loss.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ChefPat on 12/26/2010 03:41 pm
I guess that if there is any chance of Dragon being allowed to dock with the ISS on the next COTS flight, then they should bring cargo with them.  The cargo would be low cost, so if docking doesn't happen for any reason, there is not much loss.
I suggest some crackers & wine to go with another wheel of cheese. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: TimL on 12/26/2010 04:33 pm
Unless NASA is footing the bill for cargo transport, I hope Elon fills it with SpaceX memorabilia (T-shirts, coffee mugs, little SpaceX flags, coins, etc). Make it a repeat of the mementos the Mercury astronauts were smuggling into orbit. Sell it on Ebay after the landing and fund half the flight!
This is a business after all :)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: R.Simko on 12/26/2010 04:50 pm
Unless NASA is footing the bill for cargo transport, I hope Elon fills it with SpaceX memorabilia (T-shirts, coffee mugs, little SpaceX flags, coins, etc). Make it a repeat of the mementos the Mercury astronauts were smuggling into orbit. Sell it on Ebay after the landing and fund half the flight!
This is a business after all :)

Shirts and mugs are too big, but you could certainly get a pile of one inch tall Dragon Capsules.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: HOTTOL on 12/26/2010 07:24 pm
Looking at the latest official SpaceX videos.
Is there anything to be said about the aspect of second stage nozzle at SECO.
It looks a bit "crippled" as if too much heat (or not enough ?!) had been applied. You have to look at nozzle' surface right behind the pump's exhaust.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 12/27/2010 12:11 am
Unless NASA is footing the bill for cargo transport, I hope Elon fills it with SpaceX memorabilia (T-shirts, coffee mugs, little SpaceX flags, coins, etc). Make it a repeat of the mementos the Mercury astronauts were smuggling into orbit. Sell it on Ebay after the landing and fund half the flight!
This is a business after all :)

Would you pay 100 bucks for a SpaceX tee-shirt that flew into space?  How about 50 bucks for a SpaceX pen?

It certainly sounds good but how many tee's could you pack into a dragon, or pens.  Its peanuts.

VR
RE327
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: SpacexULA on 12/27/2010 02:49 am
Would you pay 100 bucks for a SpaceX tee-shirt that flew into space?  How about 50 bucks for a SpaceX pen?
It certainly sounds good but how many tee's could you pack into a dragon, or pens.  Its peanuts.
VR
RE327

3 Metric tons return mass
average weight of a Large Tshirt 7oz
Total returnable shirts 15,117
Average case of tshirts is 72 shirts and about .3 cubic meters
Dragon has a pressurized volume of around 10m3 so tshirts would be volume restricted instead of mass restricted.

By volume Dragon could carry around 2400 shirts, considering you would likly be able to just pour them in, or use silk shirts and decrease their volume lets be generous and say you can fit 5000 shirts in there.

Dragon/Falcon together cost around 150,000,000 to launch, so those 5000 shirts are going to cost 30 thousand a piece.

I love SpaceX, but not $30,000 t shirt love.

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Sparky on 12/27/2010 04:08 am
I love SpaceX, but not $30,000 t shirt love.



They'd better have some PRETTY witty things printed on them to be worth that much.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Hauerg on 12/27/2010 04:55 am
Looking at the latest official SpaceX videos.
Is there anything to be said about the aspect of second stage nozzle at SECO.
It looks a bit "crippled" as if too much heat (or not enough ?!) had been applied. You have to look at nozzle' surface right behind the pump's exhaust.
That is something I mentioned on the live thread on the 8th. But nobody seemed to have seen it ....
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: stockman on 12/27/2010 04:06 pm
Looking at the latest official SpaceX videos.
Is there anything to be said about the aspect of second stage nozzle at SECO.
It looks a bit "crippled" as if too much heat (or not enough ?!) had been applied. You have to look at nozzle' surface right behind the pump's exhaust.
That is something I mentioned on the live thread on the 8th. But nobody seemed to have seen it ....

a couple of pictures to help the discussion - MVAC1 is post first stage separation and MVAC2 is after Stage 2 MVAC shutdown... it does look like some ripples have formed or its a trick of lighting... can't really tell..\

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 12/27/2010 04:23 pm
Looking at the latest official SpaceX videos.
Is there anything to be said about the aspect of second stage nozzle at SECO.
It looks a bit "crippled" as if too much heat (or not enough ?!) had been applied. You have to look at nozzle' surface right behind the pump's exhaust.
That is something I mentioned on the live thread on the 8th. But nobody seemed to have seen it ....

a couple of pictures to help the discussion - MVAC1 is post first stage separation and MVAC2 is after Stage 2 MVAC shutdown... it does look like some ripples have formed or its a trick of lighting... can't really tell..\



My guess would be soot..
It's right where the exhaust from the turbine(Gas Generator?) driving the pumps is dumped
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: mlorrey on 12/27/2010 09:07 pm
Looking at the latest official SpaceX videos.
Is there anything to be said about the aspect of second stage nozzle at SECO.
It looks a bit "crippled" as if too much heat (or not enough ?!) had been applied. You have to look at nozzle' surface right behind the pump's exhaust.
That is something I mentioned on the live thread on the 8th. But nobody seemed to have seen it ....

a couple of pictures to help the discussion - MVAC1 is post first stage separation and MVAC2 is after Stage 2 MVAC shutdown... it does look like some ripples have formed or its a trick of lighting... can't really tell..\



My guess would be soot..
It's right where the exhaust from the turbine(Gas Generator?) driving the pumps is dumped

The pump exhaust is itself a small rocket engine, it provides roll control but also provides linear thrust. The area of the nozzle you see that seems "rippled" maybe slightly so from this exhaust hitting it. I read that at the end of the nozzle the niobium alloy is only twice the thickness of a soda can, which is pretty dang thing. A full soda can can withstand over 40 psi but that area of the engine nozzle is most assuredly less than atmospheric pressure (<14 psi).

If it isn't actually being rippled, it is likely a change in the reflectivity due to heating by the pump nozzle exhaust (and yes, maybe some soot as well). Next time you get a chance to play with a soldering or welding torch, let the flame play over the surface of some shiney metal and watch how the reflective properties change.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: e of pi on 12/27/2010 09:38 pm
Has there been anything out of SpaceX about the LE issues on this flight? Beyond the "little fire," have they dealt with the gripper arm that was...liberated from the erector?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: gospacex on 12/27/2010 10:15 pm
3 Metric tons return mass
average weight of a Large Tshirt 7oz
Total returnable shirts 15,117
Average case of tshirts is 72 shirts and about .3 cubic meters

.3 m^3 is a volume of 1m x 1m x 30cm. IOW: it's a stack of sixty 1m x 1m x 5mm volume elements. 5mm = 1/5in. IOW: Your 72 "t-shirts" are mightily thick. Real t-shirts can be packed at least 10 times more compact.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ChefPat on 12/27/2010 11:19 pm
Simply Smashing Compressed T-Shirts are vacuum sealed down to some pretty small sizes & rather odd shapes.
http://www.simplysmashing.com/index.asp?CatId=1&MainFileName=ClientSubCatListing.asp?HCatId=1
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: SpacexULA on 12/28/2010 12:11 am
Simply Smashing Compressed T-Shirts are vacuum sealed down to some pretty small sizes & rather odd shapes.
http://www.simplysmashing.com/index.asp?CatId=1&MainFileName=ClientSubCatListing.asp?HCatId=1

Wow that changes the numbers a lot :)

http://www.simplysmashing.com/index.asp?CatId=1&MainFileName=ClientSubCatListing.asp?HCatId=1 

Post card one looks to be 4.25*6*.25 inches or around 6 cubic inches

(10 (cubic meters)) / (6 (cubic inches)) = 101 706.24

so 125,000,000 / 101 706 = 1 229.0327

Still a $1300 T shirt, but a lot better :)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 12/28/2010 01:38 am
 I imagine Dragon will have a full fuel load and maybe something actually usable in case of berthing approval, like water.
 There's probably not enough time for the t-shirt idea anyhow, since SpaceX would undoubtably insist on building the underwear compactor in their own factory. Probably make the t-shirts from raw cotton too.
 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: hop on 12/28/2010 01:49 am
I imagine Dragon will have a full fuel load and maybe something actually usable in case of berthing approval, like water.
Alternatively, just taking away a couple tons of trash would be a great value for the ISS. Or return some failed items that are slated for progress disposal.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: jimvela on 12/28/2010 02:32 am
Probably make the t-shirts from raw cotton too.

Why are people obsessed with T-shirts, and then whole T-shirts?

If they want to fly something that can be resold, how about a 1"x1" foil hologram on bulk rolls, which could then be cut up and incorporated into any number of products with "the hologram on this _____ flew in space aboard a SpaceX Dragon" or some such.

As others mentioned, inbound Water to transfer,  and even a partial load of downmass items would be a meaningful mission contribution to a bonus berthing on the next demo flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: R.Simko on 12/28/2010 02:59 am
Probably make the t-shirts from raw cotton too.

Why are people obsessed with T-shirts, and then whole T-shirts?

If they want to fly something that can be resold, how about a 1"x1" foil hologram on bulk rolls, which could then be cut up and incorporated into any number of products with "the hologram on this _____ flew in space aboard a SpaceX Dragon" or some such.

As others mentioned, inbound Water to transfer,  and even a partial load of downmass items would be a meaningful mission contribution to a bonus berthing on the next demo flight.

That hologram on bulk rolls idea of yours sounds great.  Of course I'm hoping that NASA will contract SpaceX for actual ISS supplies on this next launch.  Perhaps SpaceX could slip in a hologram roll or two, along with the ISS suppies.  Even if the holograms don't make a lot of money, it could be great publicity.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: rickl on 12/28/2010 03:22 am
I thought I read at the time of the Dec. 8 flight that Dragon carried a cargo of mission patches.  I assumed they would be offered for sale to the public.  Later I read somewhere that they were for SpaceX employees.

I apologize if this has already been covered.  I'm new here.  It looks like a great forum, but I'm not going to read all 85 pages of comments on this thread.   ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: docmordrid on 12/28/2010 03:29 am

Why are people obsessed with T-shirts, and then whole T-shirts?

Speaking of T-shirts; the LA Times is reporting NASA staffers wearing "WWED" T-shirts: What Would Elon Do?  This in the context of if the agency can modify its culture.

LA Times.... (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nasa-costs-20101228,0,2011017.story)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 12/28/2010 11:21 am

Why are people obsessed with T-shirts, and then whole T-shirts?

Speaking of T-shirts; the LA Times is reporting NASA staffers wearing "WWED" T-shirts: What Would Elon Do?  This in the context of if the agency can modify its culture.

LA Times.... (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nasa-costs-20101228,0,2011017.story)


 Trying to  picture  Jim in that t-shirt.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: cuddihy on 12/28/2010 04:52 pm
the LA Times is reporting NASA staffers wearing "WWED" T-shirts: What Would Elon Do?  This in the context of if the agency can modify its culture.


Answer: exactly what he has already done. That is, promise to deliver reduced cost (by an order of magnitude) access to ___space on a compressed timeline. then, actually deliver at a mild decrement from normal NASA costs something slightly less capable than promised at twice his originally anticipated price and schedule, then put out a press release proclaiming the acheivment as heralding a new era.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 12/28/2010 05:29 pm
the LA Times is reporting NASA staffers wearing "WWED" T-shirts: What Would Elon Do?  This in the context of if the agency can modify its culture.


Answer: exactly what he has already done. That is, promise to deliver reduced cost (by an order of magnitude) access to ___space on a compressed timeline. then, actually deliver at a mild decrement from normal NASA costs something slightly less capable than promised at twice his originally anticipated price and schedule, then put out a press release proclaiming the acheivment as heralding a new era.

 You say he promised 1/10 the usual cost, came in at twice that, then call it a "mild decrement from normal NASA costs" 
 What exactly is "Normal" for NASA anyhow? Progress? HTV? ATV? Or are you talking about the Shuttle?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: meekGee on 12/28/2010 05:43 pm
Hi Folks, long time reader, first time responder...

This really takes the cake....

Straight from Google Cache:

Jan 9, 2004 - Jump to: Falcon 9 Overview - First Stage - Second Stage - Merlin Engine - Reliability .... LEO (s/c<80% capacity to the customer orbit), $49.9M ...

k?    Was $49.9M 6 years ago, is $49.9M today.    And on top, development cost next to nothing on the NASA scale.

And yes, anyone (looking at you cuddihy) - if Google cache is wrong, or if you have other data about prices promised being lower than $50M for F9, do own up and post them.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 12/28/2010 05:52 pm
That price is only good through Thursday.
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
Better hurry....
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: rklaehn on 12/28/2010 05:53 pm
Hi Folks, long time reader, first time responder...

This really takes the cake....

Straight from Google Cache:

Jan 9, 2004 - Jump to: Falcon 9 Overview - First Stage - Second Stage - Merlin Engine - Reliability .... LEO (s/c<80% capacity to the customer orbit), $49.9M ...

k?    Was $49.9M 6 years ago, is $49.9M today.    And on top, development cost next to nothing on the NASA scale.

And yes, anyone (looking at you cuddihy) - if Google cache is wrong, or if you have other data about prices promised being lower than $50M for F9, do own up and post them.

Here is the price from the announcement of the falcon 9 in january 2006:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060111045603/http://www.spacex.com/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20060111045603/http://www.spacex.com/)

The money quote: In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, making Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide.

So prices did increase substantially. But it is still the cheapest US launch vehicle, so if they can demonstrate high reliability they should have no problems finding customers.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 12/28/2010 06:54 pm
the LA Times is reporting NASA staffers wearing "WWED" T-shirts: What Would Elon Do?  This in the context of if the agency can modify its culture.


Answer: exactly what he has already done. That is, promise to deliver reduced cost (by an order of magnitude) access to ___space on a compressed timeline. then, actually deliver at a mild decrement from normal NASA costs something slightly less capable than promised at twice his originally anticipated price and schedule, then put out a press release proclaiming the acheivment as heralding a new era.

Do I sense frustration? :-D
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: cuddihy on 12/28/2010 10:42 pm
been a SpaceX fan since they started. Significantly less of an Elon Musk fan, however.

It's not that I don't think what SpaceX has accomplished isn't impressive. It goes to show what a billion dollars, properly applied, can do.

But compared to what Elon Musk was proposing when he started, as what he would consider success, (at one point he said he would consider if they could not get their eventual $/kg to less than  1/10th of what it was, he would consider that a failure. Of course, he also originally said if they failed to launch 3 F1s in a row, he would consider that a signal that he should quit.)

So the history of SpaceX is in many respects, the Education of Elon. Like our president, he has been doing a lot of OJT for a very difficult job.

No doubt  SpaceX makes more effective use of $500 million than ATK. And that's about as far as you can take it.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: meekGee on 12/29/2010 01:50 am
ok - I trust the wayback machine snapshot over google's.  Still only a moderate increase given both time and project development scope that elapsed since then, not anywhere near "twice as expensive".

Regarding $/kg, F9 is just the beginning. F9H is advertised lower, and at least the company line regarding F9 pricing is that it assumes no component re-use.  Heavy lift will follow as well - I don't think he committed to reducing the price by a factor of 10 by the second launch of F9, did he?

And yeah, he didn't quit after 3 failures - sue him.  Actually, if you look at how and when they occurred, the signal was strong that F1 was a success - even the first shot was encouraging from that point of view.

Performance wise, this guy walks on water.  When compared to the performance record of the established rocket industry, he walks on air.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/29/2010 02:13 am
It goes to show what a billion dollars, properly applied, can do.

A billion dollars? I thought it was half a billion. Still an enormous amount of money of course, though not for manned spaceflight.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Downix on 12/29/2010 02:31 am
It goes to show what a billion dollars, properly applied, can do.

A billion dollars? I thought it was half a billion. Still an enormous amount of money of course, though not for manned spaceflight.
And does not count the money NASA spent on the technology base and research that Space tapped.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/29/2010 02:34 am
And does not count the money NASA spent on the technology base and research that Space tapped.

The same goes for the billions spent on Ares I + Orion which also tapped the same technology base and research. In addition, those were sunk costs before either endeavour started.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: R.Simko on 12/29/2010 02:55 am
been a SpaceX fan since they started. Significantly less of an Elon Musk fan, however.

It's not that I don't think what SpaceX has accomplished isn't impressive. It goes to show what a billion dollars, properly applied, can do.

But compared to what Elon Musk was proposing when he started, as what he would consider success, (at one point he said he would consider if they could not get their eventual $/kg to less than  1/10th of what it was, he would consider that a failure. Of course, he also originally said if they failed to launch 3 F1s in a row, he would consider that a signal that he should quit.)

So the history of SpaceX is in many respects, the Education of Elon. Like our president, he has been doing a lot of OJT for a very difficult job.

No doubt  SpaceX makes more effective use of $500 million than ATK. And that's about as far as you can take it.

"Of course, he (Elon) also originally said if they failed to launch 3 F1s in a row, he would consider that a signal that he should quit."

I'm not sure what you are complaining about here.  Considering he should quit, is not the same thing as saying he WILL quit.  Thank goodness he didn't quit, if he had, we would have all missed the next 4 straight sussessful launches done by SpaceX.

His NOT quiting, is a sign of his fortitude and something to be admired. 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 12/29/2010 02:57 am
And does not count the money NASA spent on the technology base and research that Space tapped.
...Which is also available to every other domestic aerospace corporation. Nothing has stopped (or is stopping) any of the other larger corporations from doing what SpaceX is doing.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Swatch on 12/29/2010 03:20 am
And does not count the money NASA spent on the technology base and research that Space tapped.

Wow... this may be the biggest reach I've ever seen on here.  Guess we should just add the costs of Apollo to their spending while we're at it.  After all, they would have never figured out pintle engines if not for the Lunar Module.  Or perhaps we should add the cost of developing the microchip...
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/29/2010 03:30 am
Keep it on topic guys or we may as well close this one and use the COTS-2 thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 12/29/2010 03:35 am
I am also anxious to learn more about the technical details of COTS Demo 1 flight, the nominal subject of this thread.  However, this is descending in to endless whining.  "He didn't quit after 3 failures." "It's nothing ESA didn't do with ARD." "The real cost is $1B."  "No, it's $400M." "The QD failure was a hair's breath from doom." "The fire was trivial." "Musk admits he's a failure because the price is three tenth of current cost."  "It's going towards 9/10's."  "The Dragon's first landing error was a third of the minimum ever achieved by the Russians."  "Must stood on the shoulders of giants."  "What's with the cheese and the cow with muddy boots?"  (OK.  I really do want to know that one.)

It would help if SpaceX released a few more images, details, or videos....

edit: Written before Chris' warning.  Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Antares on 12/29/2010 04:51 am
Please stop quoting the prices on the SpaceX web page.  Only real contract prices for a real integration are valid.  This is the difference between space professionals and everyone else.  We don't come to your place of work and give you list prices from your suppliers when no one is actually paying that.  Please refrain from the analogue here.

Also, I demand photographic proof of "WWED" - and I hope the amazing people are given junk assignments.  WWED is another extreme, where various positions in the middle are far more valid than either WWED or the Apollo/Shuttle paradigm.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: docmordrid on 12/29/2010 05:32 am
No taste for freedom of expression, 'eh?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kkattula on 12/29/2010 05:51 am
You know WWED could also be taken as gently mocking the wide-spread view that only SpaceX is doing anything innovative in space, while at the same time encouraging a bit of lateral thinking.

I think it's good sign, if true.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 12/29/2010 06:14 am
Also, I demand photographic proof of "WWED" - and I hope the amazing people are given junk assignments.
Demand proof from the Orlando Sentinel. That's where the "WWED" stuff comes from. Or is independent verification needed before any news story can be discussed here? Hardly.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: SpacexULA on 12/29/2010 06:33 am
If there is any forum that could produce physical evidence it would be this one.

Some COTS1 related things I haven't seen much talk about:

-I wonder how many pieces that dragon is in right now :)

-Some people on here personally know SpaceX employees, have they got their patches yet?

-The "black Box" they used, what would a black box for a 1st stage look like anyway?

-Notice the Rubber dingy/barge recovery of the Dragon, could that be used for a manned launch?  Or would they really need the seahawk chopper they show in the video?

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/29/2010 03:22 pm
I'm also waiting for more information about the first stage's "black box." Has it been recovered?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 12/29/2010 05:55 pm
 I haven't heard anything about the infamous 1st stage flaking cork coating in a while. Did they abandon that idea for now?
 I never could figure out what was so hard about feeding data to an epoxy foam encased memory stick that would survive a thousand Gs and float.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Jim on 12/29/2010 07:59 pm
1.   I haven't heard anything about the infamous 1st stage flaking cork coating in a while. Did they abandon that idea for now?
 2.  I never could figure out what was so hard about feeding data to an epoxy foam encased memory stick that would survive a thousand Gs and float.

1.  no, there is still cork

2.  Because most of the telemetry is analog and voluminous.  Especially for nine engines
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/29/2010 09:08 pm
...
 2.  I never could figure out what was so hard about feeding data to an epoxy foam encased memory stick that would survive a thousand Gs and float.
...
2.  Because most of the telemetry is analog and voluminous.  Especially for nine engines
You think SpaceX is using an analog black box? I highly doubt it. EDIT:And actually, I'd bet the sensor data is digitized practically right on the sensor, since the avionics are digital. Analog to digital converters are fast, cheap, and ubiquitous.

As far as voluminous... You could fit about 1 terabyte (that is, 1 trillion bytes) in a solid-state blackbox the size of a deck of cards. No moving parts, so could be made to survive thousands of gees (and very high write speeds... 500MB/s, though faster is possible). A 32GB (that is, 32 1Megasamples/sec bandwidth signals with 16bit resolution for about 8 minutes) solid-state drive is smaller than a fingernail (I have a similar, but 1GB capacity microSD disk in my cellphone), though to get the necessary 64MB/s, you'd need a slightly larger device (the size of a book of matches).

You really think SpaceX is using something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlY5W7be5jU
(That's kind of a joke, BTW. :) )

Modern "black box" essentially is an industrial version of a memory stick, though larger so you can actually find the thing (and fit a locator beacon, etc).
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: butters on 12/29/2010 09:11 pm
They recovered the "black box" from the first stage. I think they call it "Talon".
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/29/2010 09:13 pm
They recovered the "black box" from the first stage. I think they call it "Talon".
Can you point to a reference? I heard they just found the signal, I don't remember them actually recovering the "Talon."
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: butters on 12/29/2010 09:18 pm
They recovered the "black box" from the first stage. I think they call it "Talon".
Can you point to a reference? I heard they just found the signal, I don't remember them actually recovering the "Talon."

They at least had the signal after it had landed in the Atlantic and sent the recovery boat to get it. It's possible that they didn't recover it. I haven't heard anything either way. Why would they be unable to recover it if they had the signal? Maybe it sunk?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 12/30/2010 12:18 am
 2 bytes of data gives you 64k analog resolution, so 1,000 samples per second would only be around 120KB raw data per minute if you had some nice clean software that only stored results.
 Been in this discussion with airliner folks who were convinced that you couldn't send real time system monitoring without using "Huge" amounts of bandwidth. You can pack a pretty impressive number of high resolution/rate analog readings into a small data stream if you're old enough to remember when efficiency counted and you didn't get to use 4 thousand lines of code to read a switch.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Jim on 12/30/2010 12:27 am
Airplanes are different from rockets
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/30/2010 12:28 am
1.) You think SpaceX is using an analog black box?

2.) As far as voluminous... You could fit about 1 terabyte (that is, 1 trillion bytes) in a solid-state blackbox the size of a deck of cards.

1.) In data acquisition, you typically refer to digital for signals that only have binary states (on/off) and analog for signals that have more states, even if the values are digitized. A pressure transducer being read out as a 16 bit digital value is an analog channel.

2.) Some things aren't as trivial as they first seem. Even if it did eject and survive and broadcast a homing signal ok, actually pinpointing such a tiny object in the open ocean before its battery dies isn't trivial.

And either it needs a preprocessor onboard the rocket to feed the cartridge collated data, or it needs a connection for every input it records. The former is most likely.

That Engineer Guy video was pretty well done. I'll have to look up more of his stuff.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/30/2010 01:06 am
1.) You think SpaceX is using an analog black box?

2.) As far as voluminous... You could fit about 1 terabyte (that is, 1 trillion bytes) in a solid-state blackbox the size of a deck of cards.

1.) In data acquisition, you typically refer to digital for signals that only have binary states (on/off) and analog for signals that have more states, even if the values are digitized. A pressure transducer being read out as a 16 bit digital value is an analog channel.

2.) Some things aren't as trivial as they first seem. Even if it did eject and survive and broadcast a homing signal ok, actually pinpointing such a tiny object in the open ocean before its battery dies isn't trivial.

3) And either it needs a preprocessor onboard the rocket to feed the cartridge collated data, or it needs a connection for every input it records. The former is most likely.

4) That Engineer Guy video was pretty well done. I'll have to look up more of his stuff.
1) Ah, that makes sense.
2) After reading Jim's response again, I realize he was responding most to the claim that it was trivial. I agree it isn't trivial. However, I'll keep my post as-is because I don't think either the data quantity or data rate are what makes it non-trivial, because of the enormous advances in the last few decades in storage technology (my current day-job).

3) I bet it'd uses the Falcon 9 avionics bus, which I believe is ethernet-based (and thus higher bandwidth than older legacy digital buses which might not be able to handle the necessarily throughput), so is the "former." An embedded processor of that capability is pretty common-place, though... Since the data is presumably already digitized, you just need to get the requisite streaming throughput, which I highly doubt would be over 100MB/s. I don't know if the rad-hardening requirements would that great for a first stage "black box" like this. You could probably get by with just good ECC.

4) Yeah, he's really cool. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 12/30/2010 01:44 am
 The video makes me wonder if they are using a device with built in accelerometer, vibration sensing, mini gyro outputting sensors, in addition to external data recording.
 My Iphone can do all that. Sound ridiculous, but I often strap that sucker onto various moving objects to get roll/pitch/vibration/acceleration data to see if various gear can take the abuse. What you get from a world where video game technology drives the market I guess.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/30/2010 02:02 am
2 bytes of data gives you 64k analog resolution, so 1,000 samples per second would only be around 120KB raw data per minute if you had some nice clean software that only stored results.
 Been in this discussion with airliner folks who were convinced that you couldn't send real time system monitoring without using "Huge" amounts of bandwidth. You can pack a pretty impressive number of high resolution/rate analog readings into a small data stream if you're old enough to remember when efficiency counted and you didn't get to use 4 thousand lines of code to read a switch.

Now, imagine you have 70 such channels plus a couple of tri-axial accelerometers you want to sample at 20kHz.  On each engine.  And you have another hundred or so channels on the stage and FTS.  And you have a similar situation on the upper stage, just with one engine.  I make that at over 1.5GB/s.

It can add up when you have a few high-rate channels and when you have hundreds and hundreds of channels.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Jim on 12/30/2010 02:24 am


3) I bet it'd uses the Falcon 9 avionics bus, which I believe is ethernet-based (and thus higher bandwidth than older legacy digital buses which might not be able to handle the necessarily throughput), so is the "former." An embedded processor of that capability is pretty common-place, though... Since the data is presumably already digitized, you just need to get the requisite streaming throughput, which I highly doubt would be over 100MB/s. I don't know if the rad-hardening requirements would that great for a first stage "black box" like this. You could probably get by with just good ECC.


Which they are finding out isn't a good format to downlink
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/30/2010 02:31 am
Which they are finding out isn't a good format to downlink

They're trying to downlink ethernet?  That's a catastrophically horrid format to send over a long-latency noisy communications channel.  It would take some thought to design a format that's worse.

I thought everyone used one of the PCM formats for this?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Antares on 12/30/2010 03:58 am
Also, I demand photographic proof of "WWED" - and I hope the amazing people are given junk assignments.
Demand proof from the Orlando Sentinel. That's where the "WWED" stuff comes from. Or is independent verification needed before any news story can be discussed here? Hardly.

Peace, not my intent.  I know things mentioned here are seen by a LOT of high-level lurkers and others who could substantiate Mr Block's account.  So the gauntlet is down.

As for freedom of expression, culture is fragile and sudden swings produce a LOT of unexpected results.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: mmeijeri on 12/30/2010 06:17 am
Now, imagine you have 70 such channels plus a couple of tri-axial accelerometers you want to sample at 20kHz.  On each engine.  And you have another hundred or so channels on the stage and FTS.  And you have a similar situation on the upper stage, just with one engine.  I make that at over 1.5GB/s.

Wouldn't that data be very easy to compress? High frequency samples of a continuous signal?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 12/30/2010 11:40 am

Now, imagine you have 70 such channels plus a couple of tri-axial accelerometers you want to sample at 20kHz.  On each engine.  And you have another hundred or so channels on the stage and FTS.  And you have a similar situation on the upper stage, just with one engine.  I make that at over 1.5GB/s.

It can add up when you have a few high-rate channels and when you have hundreds and hundreds of channels.

 The 20khz sample on the accelerometers surprises me some, but I can see it if you're using them to collect accoustical data or sub millisecond events. Or getting time stamps accurate enough to use them for figuring the propogation of such events. I didn't have the impression SpaceX went to that level, but I can see how it would add up.
 
 I'd think that if they were trying to use ethernet for downlinking, they'd use that spoofing whatchacallit protocol that geo sats use sometimes to stream it without the acks garbaging things up. Lose a lot of packets that way in noisy links though.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: rklaehn on 12/30/2010 12:07 pm
Now, imagine you have 70 such channels plus a couple of tri-axial accelerometers you want to sample at 20kHz.  On each engine.  And you have another hundred or so channels on the stage and FTS.  And you have a similar situation on the upper stage, just with one engine.  I make that at over 1.5GB/s.

Wouldn't that data be very easy to compress? High frequency samples of a continuous signal?

Yes. Most telemetry compresses extremely well, especially if you do not mix different kinds of data before compressing. But to get optimum compression, you need to compress each telemetry stream separately, which requires a buffer for each stream. And obviously compression requires a lot of computing power.

However, you must be able to handle a situation where compression rate goes down quite a bit, for example because all signals become noisy because something "interesting" happens.

A system that is close to some limit (memory bandwidth, CPU usage, etc.) when processing normal telemetry might break down as soon as you feed it more "interesting" data.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/30/2010 12:32 pm
Now, imagine you have 70 such channels plus a couple of tri-axial accelerometers you want to sample at 20kHz.  On each engine.  And you have another hundred or so channels on the stage and FTS.  And you have a similar situation on the upper stage, just with one engine.  I make that at over 1.5GB/s.

Wouldn't that data be very easy to compress? High frequency samples of a continuous signal?

Most likely to random ... compression only works really well if it is LOSSY (not a good idea for this need) or has a fair amount of duplicate data. High resolution AtoD data never compresses very well.

Remember all the video and audio compression we are very familiar with is lossy and "modifies" the original data.

It would be more important to record it along with extra checksum like data that indicates the data is intact and untampered with or corrupted.

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/30/2010 03:03 pm
2 bytes of data gives you 64k analog resolution, so 1,000 samples per second would only be around 120KB raw data per minute if you had some nice clean software that only stored results.
 Been in this discussion with airliner folks who were convinced that you couldn't send real time system monitoring without using "Huge" amounts of bandwidth. You can pack a pretty impressive number of high resolution/rate analog readings into a small data stream if you're old enough to remember when efficiency counted and you didn't get to use 4 thousand lines of code to read a switch.

Now, imagine you have 70 such channels plus a couple of tri-axial accelerometers you want to sample at 20kHz.  On each engine.  And you have another hundred or so channels on the stage and FTS.  And you have a similar situation on the upper stage, just with one engine.  I make that at over 1.5GB/s.

It can add up when you have a few high-rate channels and when you have hundreds and hundreds of channels.
No, you're wrong.

You skipped two zeros.

It'd be 15MB/s based on what you just said.
((70*1000Hz+2*3*20000Hz)*9+300*20000Hz)*2Bytes  (http://www.google.com/search?q=((70*1000Hz%2B2*3*20000Hz)*9%2B300*20000Hz)*2Bytes)= ~15MB/s
(you can easily check this in Google if you wish)

If 20kHz is "high rate," then data storage is no problem, even with hundreds of channels!
(And fiber gyros typically have update rates in the ~1000Hz range, not 20kHz, FYI)

The avionics bus would saturate long before you get to a data rate too high to store in something the size of a book of matches, if you only need 15 minutes of such data.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/30/2010 03:39 pm
Why are we arguing something no one here has any insight into ... We don't even know if they have even recovered what ever Talon is.

Yes we assume it is a data recorder designed to return data that will aid in future recovery efforts. RECOVERY EFFORTS are the key words.

We have no clue what data it records, to aid in recovery. It could be as simple as an accelerometer and gyro in a box that has zero interactions with the actual Falcon 9 avionics.

Does it record powered flight parameters? does it need to? How does that aid recovery?
Does it tap into the Falcon 9's data bus? Does it need to? Is the bus still active after the end of powered flight?
Are not the rockets brains in the US and not the First Stage? So it can not be directly attached to the brains (which are tasty with a of beans).
Do you really want extra messages on the data bus for a black box? The nature of the bus choice dictates you want to keep the traffic on it to a min so you do not have bottle neck's that keep time critical messages from reaching the intended hardware.

It could even be a network analyzer that just records all the TCIP packets that get transmitted across the bus during the powered portion of the flight. That is within the realm of hardware one can use a paypal account to buy on ebay...
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/30/2010 04:00 pm
...
Do you really want extra messages on the data bus for a black box? The nature of the bus choice dictates you want to keep the traffic on it to a min so you do not have bottle neck's that keep time critical messages from reaching the intended hardware.
...

The avionics have very strict timing and/or bandwidth requirements. It is set up so that time-critical messages always reach the intended hardware in time. That's what real-time programming is all about... The amount of "extra" bandwidth left over for other uses (like recording data from sensors) is finite but very well-defined. It's not risky to use this "extra" bandwidth, the time-critical messages are still guaranteed to reach their destination in time. This is different from "regular" non-realtime networks like you find in an office or data center.

But I agree that this is off-topic. I merely wanted to correct a mistake made by Lee Jay so that no one is left with an incorrect understanding of the situation.

I am very interested to hear more news about "Talon."
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: MP99 on 12/30/2010 05:08 pm
2.  I never could figure out what was so hard about feeding data to an epoxy foam encased memory stick that would survive a thousand Gs and float.

2.  Because most of the telemetry is analog and voluminous.  Especially for nine engines

I thought that the Talon was there to help with 1st stage recovery? If so, ISTM the period of interest is from stage separation onwards, so the Merlins would be shut down before this point.

I'd have thought the relevant info would be stage attitude before reentry, and then attitude & stresses on the frame during reentry?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: meekGee on 12/30/2010 05:32 pm
Do they know if the stage was in one piece by the time it was supposed to deploy the first chute?

If it's a deployment issue, a camera view would give a lot of information about the mis-deployment.   If the stage breaks up before deployment, then g loads and orientation is what they're after.

I wonder if the beacon stayed stuck to some piece of structure, and sunk slowly as they were racing for it.   I am sure they will be (have been) trying to downlink from the stage rather than look for a thumb drive in the middle of the ocean.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: TexasRED on 12/30/2010 07:29 pm


3) I bet it'd uses the Falcon 9 avionics bus, which I believe is ethernet-based (and thus higher bandwidth than older legacy digital buses which might not be able to handle the necessarily throughput), so is the "former." An embedded processor of that capability is pretty common-place, though... Since the data is presumably already digitized, you just need to get the requisite streaming throughput, which I highly doubt would be over 100MB/s. I don't know if the rad-hardening requirements would that great for a first stage "black box" like this. You could probably get by with just good ECC.


Which they are finding out isn't a good format to downlink

I thought the dragon page said they were on good ol' Mil Std 1553 and RS-422 also?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: rklaehn on 12/30/2010 10:36 pm
Most likely to random ... compression only works really well if it is LOSSY (not a good idea for this need) or has a fair amount of duplicate data. High resolution AtoD data never compresses very well.

No, if you have an analog signal representing a physical quantity that is slowly changing such as a temperature, you will only have noise in the last bit. So even common analog data does compress very well using a simple lossless algorithm such as deflate.

Quote
Remember all the video and audio compression we are very familiar with is lossy and "modifies" the original data.

Nobody would ever dare to use lossy compression for telemetry. But lossless compression works just fine. Let's say that you want to store a calibrated temperature as an IEEE 754 double. Each sample consumes 64 bit (plus the time stamp if you have a nonuniform sampling rate). But if the source of the data is a 12 bit A/D converter, there are only 2^12 distinct values. And assuming the temperature changes only slowly compared to the sample rate, only the last bit of these 12 will be random. So the compression might get the whole thing down to 1 bit per sample or less.

Quote
It would be more important to record it along with extra checksum like data that indicates the data is intact and untampered with or corrupted.

If you use gzip compression, a simple checksum of the compressed data is calculated. But if you really care about data integrity, you should use a better checksum such as SHA1 even if it takes some time to calculate.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/30/2010 11:44 pm
A few points on that

1. If the telemetry you are returning is time limited (like must come down during the powered phase of flight) you must have enough bandwidth for the worse case compression case. Something just south of uncompressed.

2. Not all data is slow changing some like say vibration which you would want to be sampling at a high rate (though it should be cyclic which leads to other ways to compress effectively).

3. I was trying to point out that many familiar (non space) high compression methods like jpg, mpg, ect. are lossy, loss less does not achieve as high a rate of compression for similar data.

4. Data corruption on compressed data usually results in making it very difficult to restore the data unless additional info is encoded (more bandwidth) into the data stream to pick up wayward bits. Yeah CRC's are not great. There are some fairly light weight ones I vaguely recall...

5. Though I really like SHA1 it is a little heavy weight. Besides, technically it is deprecated for new government work. You need to switch to SHA2 ;)  (I've been sitting through to many FDA 21 CFR Part 11 certifications meetings as of late ).


Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: jimvela on 12/31/2010 12:10 am
Back in the bad old days when we actually had the capability to land men on the moon, telemetry meant that you collected the signals you needed, and downlinked them.  They were then recorded.

I know that we live in a brave new digital world, but everyone wanting to build some super duper flight recorder for the F9 first stage is mucking it up, in my opinion.  Unnecessarily complicated, unnecessarily rugged.

Do the same thing that the OGBs did- perhaps as simple as a couple of rocket cams to watch what happens and a simple transmitter spewing TLM for a ground station to record. 

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/31/2010 12:20 am
And the Saturn recoverable film pods where? They did something similar to Talon on film for Saturn, though if memory serves, not every film pod was recovered.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/31/2010 12:24 am
2 bytes of data gives you 64k analog resolution, so 1,000 samples per second would only be around 120KB raw data per minute if you had some nice clean software that only stored results.
 Been in this discussion with airliner folks who were convinced that you couldn't send real time system monitoring without using "Huge" amounts of bandwidth. You can pack a pretty impressive number of high resolution/rate analog readings into a small data stream if you're old enough to remember when efficiency counted and you didn't get to use 4 thousand lines of code to read a switch.

Now, imagine you have 70 such channels plus a couple of tri-axial accelerometers you want to sample at 20kHz.  On each engine.  And you have another hundred or so channels on the stage and FTS.  And you have a similar situation on the upper stage, just with one engine.  I make that at over 1.5GB/s.

It can add up when you have a few high-rate channels and when you have hundreds and hundreds of channels.
No, you're wrong.

You skipped two zeros.

It'd be 15MB/s based on what you just said.
((70*1000Hz+2*3*20000Hz)*9+300*20000Hz)*2Bytes  (http://www.google.com/search?q=((70*1000Hz%2B2*3*20000Hz)*9%2B300*20000Hz)*2Bytes)= ~15MB/s
(you can easily check this in Google if you wish)

Actually, we're both wrong.  I wrote 1.5GB/s but I meant 1.5GB/min (since you used "120KB raw data per minute") but, force of habit, I just wrote "/s" without even engaging a neuron or two.  You didn't copy my channel counts exactly right, but the idea is the order of magnitude is about right (these are made up numbers anyway).

Yes, you could store it on a UDMA Compact Flash card for the whole ascent.  I wouldn't want to try to find it in the ocean, however.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: jimvela on 12/31/2010 12:27 am
And the Saturn recoverable film pods where? They did something similar to Talon on film for Saturn, though if memory serves, not every film pod was recovered.

True, but today we don't need to use film, we have the capability to broadcast, receive, and store HD quality video using tiny devices.

Then you don't have to hope that any magic box survives in order to tell you what went wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/31/2010 12:40 am
As long as you track the first stage after seperation ;)

Question, I know orbital reentry speeds cause enough ionization to make communications difficult. Is the first stage going fast enough to have similar issues?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 12/31/2010 12:44 am
True, but today we don't need to use film, we have the capability to broadcast, receive, and store HD quality video using tiny devices.

Then you don't have to hope that any magic box survives in order to tell you what went wrong.

Without a high gain antenna tracking the stage which has omi antennas, I don't think you can expect live video. F9 first stage drops below the horizon for ground tracking stations so the only solution would be to equip the Shuttle recovery boats for tracking. Which would cost $.

It's cheaper for SpaceX to try recovery pods first and then try other options if that fails.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/31/2010 12:46 am
Doesn't there also exist a specially equipped P-3 that could also do the tracking job?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 12/31/2010 12:46 am
Back in the bad old days when we actually had the capability to land men on the moon, telemetry meant that you collected the signals you needed, and downlinked them.  They were then recorded.

I know that we live in a brave new digital world, but everyone wanting to build some super duper flight recorder for the F9 first stage is mucking it up, in my opinion.  Unnecessarily complicated, unnecessarily rugged.

Do the same thing that the OGBs did- perhaps as simple as a couple of rocket cams to watch what happens and a simple transmitter spewing TLM for a ground station to record. 
Telemetry and FDR's serve different primary purposes - telemetry is necessarily condensed, and in the design of what to down link you are constantly trying to balance the needs of sampling rate with sample size and support enough coverage for fault analysis - its an art.

On the other hand, our data driven analysis can suck dry the largest firehoses of data ... and still we want more. Complexity. Not only might we us this for fault analysis, but also to improve designs/performance. Airlines even use limited telemetry to assist in lowering operations costs - this is why when we couldn't recover FDR's, we'd have some info that hinted at catastrophic failure. As a result there is more demand for airline telemetry than before.

FDR's absorb the firehose - actually there are separate performance recorders for obvious reasons - but in effect the same thing, as any data recorded will be analyzed likewise afterwards.

Telemetry bandwidth hasn't increased at Moore's law rate. Which is why the art of telemetry is actually getting harder.  You can never have enough data.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/31/2010 04:57 am
2 bytes of data gives you 64k analog resolution, so 1,000 samples per second would only be around 120KB raw data per minute if you had some nice clean software that only stored results.
 Been in this discussion with airliner folks who were convinced that you couldn't send real time system monitoring without using "Huge" amounts of bandwidth. You can pack a pretty impressive number of high resolution/rate analog readings into a small data stream if you're old enough to remember when efficiency counted and you didn't get to use 4 thousand lines of code to read a switch.

Now, imagine you have 70 such channels plus a couple of tri-axial accelerometers you want to sample at 20kHz.  On each engine.  And you have another hundred or so channels on the stage and FTS.  And you have a similar situation on the upper stage, just with one engine.  I make that at over 1.5GB/s.

It can add up when you have a few high-rate channels and when you have hundreds and hundreds of channels.
No, you're wrong.

You skipped two zeros.

It'd be 15MB/s based on what you just said.
((70*1000Hz+2*3*20000Hz)*9+300*20000Hz)*2Bytes  (http://www.google.com/search?q=((70*1000Hz%2B2*3*20000Hz)*9%2B300*20000Hz)*2Bytes)= ~15MB/s
(you can easily check this in Google if you wish)
...(since you used "120KB raw data per minute")...
Wasn't me, that was Nomadd! :) I see what the confusion is, though. :)
Quote
Yes, you could store it on a UDMA Compact Flash card for the whole ascent.  I wouldn't want to try to find it in the ocean, however.
Agreed. However, my main point is that storing a lot or a little data makes very little difference in terms of volume or mass nowadays, which your own  analysis is in agreement with.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/31/2010 08:12 am
{snip}
Yes, you could store it on a UDMA Compact Flash card for the whole ascent.  I wouldn't want to try to find it in the ocean, however.

However I suspect that there are several aerospace engineers who would find designing a re-entry vehicle for a UDMA Compact Flash Card an interesting challenge.

Recoverable means that the little vehicle will probably have to float, not short out when exposed to sea water and transmit a homing signal.

Note: Solar cells can maintain intermittent radio transmissions during the day light hours for several weeks.

Since this is off topic any reply probably needs to go in its own topic.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 12/31/2010 01:17 pm
 Cast it in a block of bright orange epoxy foam held to the top of the stage with water soluble glue and add $200 worth of EPIRB hardware.
 That WWED shirt should have a picture of a pair of tin snips below the words.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Maverick on 01/03/2011 04:38 am
The SpaceX successes are worthy to enter the Shuttle-heavy year in review articles :)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/01/wrapping-up-2010-safety-success-eye-toward-future/
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Antares on 01/03/2011 06:21 am
I thought the dragon page said they were on good ol' Mil Std 1553 and RS-422 also?

Those are onboard data buses, not telemetered/RF formats.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: starsilk on 01/04/2011 03:16 pm
Press release from DLA Energy about the recent flight:

http://www.dla.mil/DLAPublic/DLA_Media_Center/PressRelease/PressReleasePrintable.aspx?ID=909

they were apparently the provider of the hypergolic fuels, and also provided logistics for recovery (presumably unused fuel cleanup / mitigation)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: TexasRED on 01/04/2011 03:39 pm
I thought the dragon page said they were on good ol' Mil Std 1553 and RS-422 also?

Those are onboard data buses, not telemetered/RF formats.

yeah just the dragon page had all of them listed under the same C&T section so had me asking.

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 01/04/2011 04:16 pm
Press release from DLA Energy about the recent flight:

http://www.dla.mil/DLAPublic/DLA_Media_Center/PressRelease/PressReleasePrintable.aspx?ID=909

they were apparently the provider of the hypergolic fuels, and also provided logistics for recovery (presumably unused fuel cleanup / mitigation)

Curious
DLA (which has a .MIL domain) provided "two propellants for the historic launch: dinitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine".  One would conclude that SpaceX obtained their LOX and RP-1 from another source, despite DLA Energy being a provider of those at KSC.

http://www.desc.dla.mil/DCM/Files/FY10%20Standard%20Price%20Letter%20%20Price%20Sheet%20Aug%2009_1.pdf

edit: Added link to DLA price list source
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/04/2011 04:32 pm
Liquid Oxygen at $95/TN?  I'm assuming that "TN" doesn't mean "ton" or else LOX costs less than concrete, which would be a bit shocking.  Can someone help me out here?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/04/2011 04:43 pm
Liquid Oxygen at $95/TN?  I'm assuming that "TN" doesn't mean "ton" or else LOX costs less than concrete, which would be a bit shocking.  Can someone help me out here?
LOx is incredibly cheap. LOx is made from air.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: go4mars on 01/04/2011 04:54 pm
LOx is made from air.

Do they use a centrifuge then?  I would have thought they would do electrolyis of water.  Either way, the price is probably mostly from the energy required to separate, chill, and truck it.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/04/2011 04:57 pm
LOx is made from air.

Do they use a centrifuge then?  I would have thought they would do electrolyis of water.  Either way, the price is probably mostly from the energy required to separate, chill, and truck it.
The cheapest way is fractional distillation of air. Anything else is a lot more expensive.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/04/2011 05:06 pm
Liquid Oxygen at $95/TN?  I'm assuming that "TN" doesn't mean "ton" or else LOX costs less than concrete, which would be a bit shocking.  Can someone help me out here?
LOx is incredibly cheap. LOx is made from air.

And huge amounts of energy and a large cryogenic plant.  Is it really $95 a ton?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 01/04/2011 05:20 pm
Liquid Oxygen at $95/TN?  I'm assuming that "TN" doesn't mean "ton" or else LOX costs less than concrete, which would be a bit shocking.  Can someone help me out here?
LOx is incredibly cheap. LOx is made from air.
And huge amounts of energy and a large cryogenic plant.  Is it really $95 a ton?
Remember, that's the price that SpaceX DIDN'T pay.  They must have an even less costly source, perhaps generating it on site.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Antares on 01/04/2011 05:23 pm
LN2 and LO2 are made in air separation units.  The only recurring cost is electricity.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: starsilk on 01/04/2011 05:35 pm
Press release from DLA Energy about the recent flight:

http://www.dla.mil/DLAPublic/DLA_Media_Center/PressRelease/PressReleasePrintable.aspx?ID=909

they were apparently the provider of the hypergolic fuels, and also provided logistics for recovery (presumably unused fuel cleanup / mitigation)

Curious
DLA (which has a .MIL domain) provided "two propellants for the historic launch: dinitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine".  Once would conclude that SpaceX obtained their LOX and RP-1 from another source, despite DLA Energy being a provider of those at KSC.

the caption on the photo is:

Quote
Powered by propellants procured by Defense Logistics Agency Energy, a Falcon 9 rocket carries a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft into orbit Dec. 8 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. Photo courtesy of SpaceX
(emphasis mine)

that doesn't square with the text in the actual press release, which talks about hypergols. maybe they thought the LOX/RP-1 was too boring to write a PR about?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: go4mars on 01/04/2011 05:36 pm
LN2 and LO2 are made in air separation units.  The only recurring cost is electricity.

Thanks.  I was unaware of that.  Something like this I presume: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_separation

If only they also churned out meta-stable polymeric nitrogen N4   
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: corrodedNut on 01/04/2011 07:10 pm
SpaceX gets their LOX from Praxair, IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxair

"...was originally founded in 1907 when it was the first company in North America to commercialize cryogenically separated oxygen...In the 1960s, Praxair introduced non-cryogenic means of air separation..."

Speaking of post-flight updates, I found this little tidbit:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/5265674380/

From the caption dated Dec 15: "A special delivery arrived in the back room – the Dragon spacecraft sits in a glass box clean room with scientists all around performing post-flight analysis. It looks like an alien craft in the secret lair of Area 51, evoking gasps from even the SpaceX executives when they first set eyes upon it."

Earlier reports had it going to McGregor, so did it go there and come back? Why would it go to Texas, maybe for hypergolic handling? Could you even send it over-the-road legally with residual hypers on it?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: go4mars on 01/04/2011 07:24 pm
Speaking of post-flight updates, I found this little tidbit:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/5265674380/


Nice find!  I love how the giant Mars photo looms so prominently.  Eye on the prize. 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 01/04/2011 08:26 pm
LOx is made from air.

Do they use a centrifuge then?  I would have thought they would do electrolyis of water.  Either way, the price is probably mostly from the energy required to separate, chill, and truck it.

 Use to be they'd liquify air and then warm it up enough to bubble the nitrogen out. It seems like electrolysis might be good if you want to make liquid hydrogen at the same time.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/04/2011 08:32 pm
LOx is made from air.

Do they use a centrifuge then?  I would have thought they would do electrolyis of water.  Either way, the price is probably mostly from the energy required to separate, chill, and truck it.

 Use to be they'd liquify air and then warm it up enough to bubble the nitrogen out. It seems like electrolysis might be good if you want to make liquid hydrogen at the same time.
Electrolysis isn't used. And it's not the usual production method for hydrogen, either.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Jim on 01/04/2011 08:41 pm
SpaceX gets their LOX from Praxair, IIRC.


There is a plant in Mims, FL that supplies everyone, shuttle, Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Jim on 01/04/2011 08:46 pm
Press release from DLA Energy about the recent flight:

http://www.dla.mil/DLAPublic/DLA_Media_Center/PressRelease/PressReleasePrintable.aspx?ID=909

they were apparently the provider of the hypergolic fuels, and also provided logistics for recovery (presumably unused fuel cleanup / mitigation)

Curious
DLA (which has a .MIL domain) provided "two propellants for the historic launch: dinitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine".  Once would conclude that SpaceX obtained their LOX and RP-1 from another source, despite DLA Energy being a provider of those at KSC.


DLA is the Defense Logistics Agency.  "Energy" is just a branch of the agency that deals with fuels, propellants and gases for the military. Because of the limited amounts and since they are specialty items, DLA  manages hypergolic propellant acquisition and storage for the military, and also provides for govt and commercial use.

As for LOX, DLA just manages the contracts for the Govt.  Commercial users, ULA and Spacex have their own contracts, since there are multiple sources with Praxair is the local one for KSC/CCAFS. 

LH2 shouldn't show up on the list since KSC manages its acquisition for all of the US Gov't

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: go4mars on 01/04/2011 09:11 pm
It seems like electrolysis might be good if you want to make liquid hydrogen at the same time.
Electrolysis isn't used. And it's not the usual production method for hydrogen, either.

Ah...  Palladium.  Is that right?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W80-43N1RYF-V&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1596409736&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4fa9a615b3c2391526b3a9e4c98f1bab&searchtype=a
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Toner Soprano on 01/05/2011 12:21 am
It looks like SpaceX updated their video section.  I don't remember seeing inside the interstage and ascent video from inside the Dragon.  The sounds produced  are  pretty interesting. 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: corrodedNut on 01/05/2011 12:53 am
It looks like SpaceX updated their video section.  I don't remember seeing inside the interstage and ascent video from inside the Dragon.  The sounds produced  are  pretty interesting. 

Yes indeed, looks like they got some data back from the "talon pod" after all. Is that the "octopus" from inside the 1st stage engine compartment as well?

The dragon ascent video is new too:

http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=57

http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=56
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 01/05/2011 01:43 am
There's also added video at the end, showing the 2nd stage restart.

I agree that the sounds are interesting. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: stockman on 01/05/2011 01:44 am
And fairing separation is shown and highlighted as well... Actually some very nice video extras.... great find...
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: rickl on 01/05/2011 01:48 am
How did they separate the nose fairing, anyway?  It must have been ejected forward and off to the side.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: stockman on 01/05/2011 01:52 am
for those who haven't seen the video yet,, here are a few snaps of some of the camera angles that are new from what I can see...

1) inside the interstage prior to separation

2 & 3) view from the first stage looking up just prior to second stage ignition

4) Nose Cone fairing jetison

5) Second stage engine Restart.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: meekGee on 01/05/2011 02:05 am
Looking straight into the hellmouth at 1:35...  no kidding - the shot from the first stage looking into the second is priceless.  You know what's going to happen, but still nice to see it happening...  The tumble rate was just right for maximum cinematographic effect :)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: tigerade on 01/05/2011 02:55 am
I like the new videos!  Thanks for pointing them out.  It's kinda funny though, COTS1 is still showing up as an "Upcoming Mission" on the SpaceX website.  I wonder why they haven't updated that yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: go4mars on 01/05/2011 03:02 am
What is the cheese grater in photos 2&3?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: go4mars on 01/05/2011 03:10 am
2 other things:

1) At 2:30 to 2:50 (dragon separation) what are all the little chunks drifting around?

2)  Observation:  When they restart the upper stage, the nozzle does not look warped/rippled as some were speculating earlier. 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: MarsInMyLifetime on 01/05/2011 04:15 am
What is the cheese grater in photos 2&3?
I suspect not much different from this vented panel inside my PC, which I tried to shoot in approximately the same orientation.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kkattula on 01/05/2011 04:22 am
What is the cheese grater in photos 2&3?

Well there was a wheel of cheese onboard Dragon, so...
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Antares on 01/05/2011 04:49 am
Typically in terrestrial applications, "swiss cheesing" of metals is for air circulation (heat convection) and, in really high volume production where the holes can be recycled, weight and cost savings.  In aerospace, it's for weight.  The cost saved by recycling the shreds is secondary, though measurable if production throughput is sufficiently high.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/05/2011 05:01 am
What is the difference between "pitch kick" and "beginning gravity turn"? I thought it was the pitch kick that initiated the gravity turn.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: mr. mark on 01/05/2011 05:04 am
Slightly confused? In the first frame above the hoses are in full view. At the moment of seperation the hoses dissapear. Are the hoses part of the second stage engine assembly?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/05/2011 05:15 am
Yeah, I was confused by that too. It looks as if at first you are looking "down" from above the second stage engine, while in the second you are looking "up".
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: spacetraveler on 01/05/2011 05:15 am
I like the new videos!  Thanks for pointing them out.  It's kinda funny though, COTS1 is still showing up as an "Upcoming Mission" on the SpaceX website.  I wonder why they haven't updated that yet?

Whoever does their website is a little slow.

They still list the first F9 flight as happening in 2009.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/05/2011 05:16 am
Good to know that they restarted the second stage engine successfully this time, I had been wondering about that.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 01/05/2011 05:26 am
Slightly confused? In the first frame above the hoses are in full view. At the moment of seperation the hoses dissapear. Are the hoses part of the second stage engine assembly?

There appear to have been two cameras in the interstate. At the moment of separation the video switches from one to to the other.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Pedantic Twit on 01/05/2011 05:36 am
What is the cheese grater in photos 2&3?

We seemed to have forgotten the photo of Marty and his tin snips (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23516.msg668928#msg668928). Some of what appears to be the same stuff is visible in the lower left.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: hpras on 01/05/2011 05:42 am
So, stage 2 reignites for a few seconds and pushes it into a different orbit.  My question is if it is a planned orbit or just a whatever it gets into.  After SECO, the stage just drifts, correct?  Looks like there is appreciable roll at dragon separation and maybe a bit of pitch at SECO.  I would expect a slow tumble then if it's not actively dampened.  Is the stage even pointing in the right direction to be controllable for a reignition. 

Otherwise, good job Spacex, really hope you can make some money at this.

Edit - Spellun..... at least some of it.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kkattula on 01/05/2011 05:48 am
What is the cheese grater in photos 2&3?

We seemed to have forgotten the photo of Marty and his tin snips (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23516.msg668928#msg668928). Some of what appears to be the same stuff is visible in the lower left.

IIRC, the interstage is carbon fibre.  My guess is they don't want to bolt anything directly to it, so they have bonded metal mounting plates to spread the loads, with holes to reduce the weight.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Hauerg on 01/05/2011 05:53 am
2 other things:

1) At 2:30 to 2:50 (dragon separation) what are all the little chunks drifting around?

2)  Observation:  When they restart the upper stage, the nozzle does not look warped/rippled as some were speculating earlier. 

I was one of the ripple-seers, but you are right, it looks ok at restart.
Seemed like a very smooth ride to orbit. Great shots from stage 1 at sep.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/05/2011 08:06 am
It looks like SpaceX updated their video section.  I don't remember seeing inside the interstage and ascent video from inside the Dragon.

So I was right that was the Dragon ascent video all along. Yay for me.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Hauerg on 01/05/2011 08:45 am
It looks like SpaceX updated their video section.  I don't remember seeing inside the interstage and ascent video from inside the Dragon.

So I was right that was the Dragon ascent video all along. Yay for me.
That earlier was not the same sequence as this one.
On this new one the best is in the last few seconds: you only see reflections but one of the things it reflects is the look out of the opposing window. Great.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/05/2011 08:48 am
Yes indeed, looks like they got some data back from the "talon pod" after all.

Not necessarily. Recall that F9 has *two* live video downlink frequencies according to the User Guide. The footage from the first stage only shows one view at a time and does camera switching, just like 2nd stage footage which is webcast. I would guess this extra video was received live from the stage so this by itself wouldn't be an indication they recovered anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/05/2011 08:49 am
It looks like SpaceX updated their video section.  I don't remember seeing inside the interstage and ascent video from inside the Dragon.

So I was right that was the Dragon ascent video all along. Yay for me.
That earlier was not the same sequence as this one.
On this new one the best is in the last few seconds: you only see reflections but one of the things it reflects is the look out of the opposing window. Great.

Yes it is, the two cirrus clouds visible are the same. Just the cropping and contrast/brightness was different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4LsLRRWIoY

Identical.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: corrodedNut on 01/05/2011 11:33 am
There's only one camera in the interstage, the other one is in the 1st stage engine compartment. The "hoses" are the merlin feedlines, (remember the "octopus": http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17941.msg442587#msg442587 ) the views are from MECO1 and 2; note the recirculating exhaust. The camera switches back and forth between 1st stage engines and interstage, which may explain the "confusion".
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: corrodedNut on 01/05/2011 11:36 am

So I was right that was the Dragon ascent video all along. Yay for me.

And I was right about the one-piece nose cap, yay for me too.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/05/2011 11:53 am
And I was right about the one-piece nose cap, yay for me too.

What's interesting about that is the stage attitude disturbance at nosecone jettison did suggest a one-piece separation as you say, but it indicated the cap swung over and ejected to the upper right side of the camera FOV and yet nothing obvious was seen there in the webcast. Now we know why.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 01/05/2011 02:56 pm
Another aspect seen in the videos is the motion of the first stage after separation.  As seen in each previous Falcon launch since the third, but more dramatically shown here, the second stage engine slides straight out of the interstage with no visible rotation.  A second or two later, though, the first stage starts rotating. 

Stage Separation is 2:57
Rotation starts ~3:02
2nd stage ingintion 3.04

From the perspective of the 2nd stage camera, the front end of the 1st stage, the interstage, seems to move sideways with the back end, the engines, seeming to continue moving straight.

Anyone have an idea what causes that rotation? 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/05/2011 03:29 pm
I speculated a while back that that was done on purpose to induce a tumble to the first stage to aid reentry. I'm thinking it could have been some high pressure gas cartridge in the interstage to give the top of the stage a kick.

Alternatively, I suppose one of the pressurization relief vents could have opened, but it seems like a way too big of a kick for that and we'd see some vapor venting.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 01/05/2011 04:40 pm
I speculated a while back that that was done on purpose to induce a tumble to the first stage to aid reentry. I'm thinking it could have been some high pressure gas cartridge in the interstage to give the top of the stage a kick.

Alternatively, I suppose one of the pressurization relief vents could have opened, but it seems like a way too big of a kick for that and we'd see some vapor venting.

A separate gas cartridge system doesn't fit with the SpaceX MO of multi-purposing existing hardware, like using high pressure fuel as the hydraulic fluid and for engine cooling. 

The kick does seem too big for just a pressure relief valve opening.  The interstage is not massless, what with all those parachutes. (Do we have estimates of their mass?)  The force also  sems to be an impulse, where an opened valve would keep pushing.
   
Without anyone profering knowledge about how it is actually done (please, please!) can we speculate on how the lateral force is generated?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 01/05/2011 04:52 pm
Its hard to tell, but to me it looks like the rotation rate is increasing for about 5 seconds, though the rate of increase seems to be reducing. That would be consistent with pressure release of a steadily decreasing pressure.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Jim on 01/05/2011 04:58 pm
There's only one camera in the interstage, the other one is in the 1st stage engine compartment. The "hoses" are the merlin feedlines, (remember the "octopus": http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17941.msg442587#msg442587 ) the views are from MECO1 and 2; note the recirculating exhaust. The camera switches back and forth between 1st stage engines and interstage, which may explain the "confusion".

Why hasn't anyone commented about the motion in this area at MECO?  Seems a little excessive.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Jim on 01/05/2011 05:00 pm
I speculated a while back that that was done on purpose to induce a tumble to the first stage to aid reentry. I'm thinking it could have been some high pressure gas cartridge in the interstage to give the top of the stage a kick.

Alternatively, I suppose one of the pressurization relief vents could have opened, but it seems like a way too big of a kick for that and we'd see some vapor venting.

A separate gas cartridge system doesn't fit with the SpaceX MO of multi-purposing existing hardware, like using high pressure fuel as the hydraulic fluid and for engine cooling. 

The kick does seem too big for just a pressure relief valve opening.  The interstage is not massless, what with all those parachutes. (Do we have estimates of their mass?)  The force also  sems to be an impulse, where an opened valve would keep pushing.
   
Without anyone profering knowledge about how it is actually done (please, please!) can we speculate on how the lateral force is generated?

Even though it hasn't ignited, the upperstage engine is venting GOX for the prestart chill down.  This could provide the impulse.

There still is the spin down of the engines too
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/05/2011 05:04 pm
Without anyone profering knowledge about how it is actually done (please, please!) can we speculate on how the lateral force is generated?

Well, you heard my theory. I disagree about that not being their modus operandi. Why not? All Falcon upper stages currently use cold gas thrusters so this wouldn't be unprecedented. It's not as if they'd have to develop a new thruster solely for inducing tumble.

Agree on the impulsive event appearance - that's why this seems like a quick discharge as opposed to some tank relief venting to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/05/2011 05:11 pm
Even though it hasn't ignited, the upperstage engine is venting GOX for the prestart chill down.  This could provide the impulse.

If that was the case, I'd also expect attitude disturbances on the 2nd stage. I don't see any. It's also noticeable how the tumble onset is pretty abrupt, after the 2nd stage is well clear of the 1st stage.

This sort of venting looks pretty similar to what we see with Centaur after separation and it doesn't affect the top of the booster stage even remotely similarly. One would also have to come up with a reason why flight #1 didn't experience this as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 01/05/2011 05:16 pm
There's only one camera in the interstage, the other one is in the 1st stage engine compartment. The "hoses" are the merlin feedlines, (remember the "octopus": http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17941.msg442587#msg442587 ) the views are from MECO1 and 2; note the recirculating exhaust. The camera switches back and forth between 1st stage engines and interstage, which may explain the "confusion".

Why hasn't anyone commented about the motion in this area at MECO?  Seems a little excessive.

Is there any footage from another LV taken from inside the thrust structure at MECO that we can compare with? I suppose some material flex is to expected, going from 2-3Gs (?) to free-fall.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/05/2011 05:18 pm
More like 4 or 5 Gs near MECO2.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/05/2011 06:08 pm
Agree on the impulsive event appearance - that's why this seems like a quick discharge as opposed to some tank relief venting to me.

FWIW, based on 2nd stage camera location and the direction of the impulse, I'd say the hole in the interstage marked in this image is the most plausible candidate. Which seems to be the 1st stage LOX tank vent at least.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Jim on 01/05/2011 06:25 pm

1.  If that was the case, I'd also expect attitude disturbances on the 2nd stage. I don't see any.

2.  It's also noticeable how the tumble onset is pretty abrupt, after the 2nd stage is well clear of the 1st stage.

3.  This sort of venting looks pretty similar to what we see with Centaur after separation and it doesn't affect the top of the booster stage even remotely similarly.

4.  One would also have to come up with a reason why flight #1 didn't experience this as well.

1.  2nd stage is under 3 axis thruster control

2.  I didn't say the venting was occurring during the beginning of separation.  It could have been the initial "burp"

3.  Centaur may vent differently

4.  Not every artifact is present every mission
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: jabe on 01/05/2011 06:46 pm
For second stage re-ignite..would they need a ullage motor?
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/05/2011 06:48 pm
ACS cold gas thrusters would settle the propellants.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 01/05/2011 07:51 pm
Agree on the impulsive event appearance - that's why this seems like a quick discharge as opposed to some tank relief venting to me.

FWIW, based on 2nd stage camera location and the direction of the impulse, I'd say the hole in the interstage marked in this image is the most plausible candidate. Which seems to be the 1st stage LOX tank vent at least.

It could be.

However, that hole seems to be too far down the stage although it does appear to be in the right place rotation-wise.  The umbilical and the corresponding hole in the interstage (seen a few frames earlier) are less than 90 degrees apart.  (blue arrows)

I think we can see the Falcon logo in the video.  (red arrows)  The port seems to be above the logo.  (green arrows) not below it (your red arrow.)

A more throrough analysis could scale the lengths to determine how far down the rocket that hole in the video sits.

If a vent valve was popped on something with limited volume, it could give a quickly decaying impulse like we think we see.   Even if SpaceX had to add a valve that wouldn't be that big a deal.  Maybe what we see in the video is the exit of a bell designed to get more thrust in that direction from the cold gas.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 01/05/2011 07:52 pm
(Image attached this time....)


Edit:  I just went back to look for the video with the interior views of hte interstage, and can't seem to find it in the SpaceX.com video gallery.  Am I missing something obvious or has it been removed?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: meekGee on 01/05/2011 08:26 pm
Yes, the split screen is gone. 

But, take a look at the attached picture, and play with the video around 1:35.

The first stage is clearly intercepting some of the otherwise invisible plume, and it becomes visible inside of the interstage.

Even though they are still aligned, even a small deviation can cause the tumbling under this assumption.

 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 01/05/2011 08:42 pm
Did anyone download that split screen video?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: jabe on 01/05/2011 10:19 pm
Did anyone download that split screen video?
I have it a work..shhhh....
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Chris-A on 01/05/2011 10:40 pm
Someone need screenshots from the video?
http://img152.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=spacex1.jpg

Edit, I have both videos, I didn't notice any out-gassing on the interstage.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: meekGee on 01/05/2011 11:10 pm
Actually, even though the interstage is definitely catching some of the exhaust plume, the rolling definitely starts before the second stage lights up.

Here's a question for someone who might know - when the 9 Merlins shut down, what happens to the angular momentum stored in the pumps?  Do they spin on regular bearings or something fancier like air bearings?   Any chance some knows how much the rotors weigh and how fast they are spinning, and most importantly - in what direction they are mounted?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 01/05/2011 11:27 pm
Actually, even though the interstage is definitely catching some of the exhaust plume, the rolling definitely starts before the second stage lights up.

Here's a question for someone who might know - when the 9 Merlins shut down, what happens to the angular momentum stored in the pumps?  Do they spin on regular bearings or something fancier like air bearings?   Any chance some knows how much the rotors weigh and how fast they are spinning, and most importantly - in what direction they are mounted?

I agree with your first statement, if not said already.

Here are two photos of an early Merlin 1, before it had a letter appended to the name, from December 2003 IIRC.  The axis of the turbopump, here at the top, appears to be parallel to the thrust vector.

If the turbines all stopped, the stage would probably rotate.  It's also hard to imagine them all (or 7 of them) stopping instantaneously and simultaneously.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: meekGee on 01/06/2011 01:28 am
Yeah, that's why I was asking about the bearing type...  but, since it's built for reusability, I don't think it's dumping the momentum that quickly, and as you show, it's parallel anyway.

So, I agree, most likely an impulse, and probably intentional, action.

So look at the picture I posted a few posts ago - clearly the interstage is catching a good chunk of the plume.  Is that healthy for the chutes inside?  Maybe the quite hurried tumbling is also to get the front of the interstage out of the direct line of fire, while still firing the second stage asap?

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: jongoff on 01/06/2011 01:39 am
Actually, even though the interstage is definitely catching some of the exhaust plume, the rolling definitely starts before the second stage lights up.

Though the Merlin-Vac engine might be running a LOX lead or purge before main ignition (just based on my experience at Masten--if you watch the Masten in-air relight video you can hear what I'm talking about right before the engine lights again), which probably wouldn't be visible, but could impart a decent amount of force on the upper part of the first stage.  And as someone earlier pointed out, it would be pretty easy for a force like that to cause a no-longer 3DOF controlled stage to tumble.  Just a guess though.

Quote
Here's a question for someone who might know - when the 9 Merlins shut down, what happens to the angular momentum stored in the pumps?  Do they spin on regular bearings or something fancier like air bearings?   Any chance some knows how much the rotors weigh and how fast they are spinning, and most importantly - in what direction they are mounted?

That's another option. 

Edit: or as you and others have said, they may have a way of intentionally tumbling the stage. 

~Jon
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Toner Soprano on 01/06/2011 01:47 am
Maybe it's just me.... but I'm not seeing the interstage part of the video or the separation from inside the interstage.  Was the video edited again? 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: stockman on 01/06/2011 02:04 am
Maybe it's just me.... but I'm not seeing the interstage part of the video or the separation from inside the interstage.  Was the video edited again? 


it appears, as someone mentioned earlier, that SpaceX has changed up the video... yesterday they had the HD flight highlights and today it looks like regular def with a different mix of views - none of the interstage camera's for example... Not sure why they would take it down now that its out in the public domain? I have my copy and I am sure most others do as well... nothing to hide now really... I wonder if someone posted the wrong video and had to do a quick swap before the boss found out...
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 01/06/2011 02:22 am
I downloaded the HD version of the clip with the interstage split screen. Sharing it would be tricky, though, unless someone has an easy place to upload it.

As for as the turbopump orientation, it must be vertical. Remember F9 flight #1, where the startup torque caused the whole LV to rotate at release. So I don't think that is the source of the stage rotation after separation. It looks intentional.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ChefPat on 01/06/2011 02:24 am
I downloaded the HD version of the clip with the interstage split screen. Sharing it would be tricky, though, unless someone has an easy place to upload it.

YouTube.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/06/2011 12:19 pm
I wonder if someone posted the wrong video and had to do a quick swap before the boss found out...

Come to think of it, we had a situation here recently when a drawing of Taurus II first stage was removed because of... well, apparently ITAR. In light of that this move appears less surprising. We were essentially given engineering camera views of the innards of a new U.S. vehicle. Sensitive/proprietary stuff? Probably.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: simcosmos on 01/06/2011 06:20 pm

Edit:  Go for it, start the thread.


Hi Martin (all),

I'm not ready yet to open a new thread focusing on the Falcon9-Dragon COTS Demo1 trajectory + performance reconstruction because that kind of subject contents really takes time and extra effort to properly reference and share the input data (and to do all the related results contextualization + discussion in public, if the objective would be to try to understand a little better the flight and, answering to TimL (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22041.msg673285#msg673285) to try to keep speculation within some constraint, at least for what I have called of a given set of input parameter 'families'  ;)).


I. Playing with Falcon9 + Dragon: Mass Breakouts + Performance Specs

As a side comment, I have also built a spreadsheet to play a little with preliminary Falcon9 'Block1 vs Block2' mass / performance data as well to play with several conceptual Dragon spacecraft configurations (example: COTS Demo1 vs COTS Dragon configurations for Falcon Block1 and Block2 vs same exercise but for crewed Dragons with the addition of assuming a more standard LAS vs integrated LAS, etc, etc). The 'results' of such preliminary spreadsheet are then used as departure points for simulation work (both on the launch vehicle and on the spacecraft performance implementation + trajectory for a given mission type).



II. SpaceX COTS Demo1 Virtual Reconstruction

As mentioned earlier on page 82, I think that was more or less able to replicate the COTS Demo1 flight, which is not, by itself, a sign of a given set of  input parameters being all 100% correct but, at least, helps to constraint a little more some specific parts of the generic puzzle (I mean, it helps with questions formulation). 

Only as example, one of the COTS Demo1 SpaceX vehicle 'possibilities' that has been simulated here had a total pre-ignition mass of ~313200 kg and ~48470 kg total vehicle mass at simulated staging (including upper stage mass + trunk + cubesats + Dragon capsule + nose cover). From there, I was able to more or less meet altitude vs velocity vs MET calls (although extra brainstorm and clarification would be needed on a number of trajectory / ascent events details and also on some of the input vehicle parameters... there are a few things for which I could have questions / comments to make but not much time to share those doubts now...).

Anyway, despite this is far from completed (haven't touched much on that simulation since the last time I wrote in this thread), one of the sets of files that have 'coded' achieves the following approximated performance (not yet an exact replication of real life results and without entering, for now, in extra details about the mass breakout, although I did further differentiated the masses on the simulation files):

288 x 301 km, 34.5 inclination, 10647 kg (US+USprop+Trunk+cubesats+DragonCapsule)

After releasing the Dragon capsule and the cubesats, the final burn state was simulated as something like:

  4110 kg : Upper Stage + Trunk
  2777 kg : Upper Stage Prop.
---------------
  6887 kg

Which, after a burn of a little more than 20s or so (for a dV of ~1567m/s or so), resulted in 281 x 11100 km, 34.61 inc:

 4110 kg : Upper Stage + Trunk
   121 kg : Upper Stage Prop.
---------------
 4231 kg
 


III. Upcoming SpaceX COTS Demo Flights
(previsions, by using demo1 data?)

To end, will soon attach to this post, one of the virtual telemetry outputs (Altitude vs MET) that resulted from using one of the COTS Demo1 estimation / simulation data to extrapolate the performance, guidance / trajectory for the delivery of  ~6800 kg cargo Dragon spacecraft into something like ~250 km circular orbit / ISS inclination (with ~11.1t – 6.8t (spacecraft) = 4.3t being upper stage mass and related remaining prop.)

This is all very preliminary (December last year) but it seems that COTS Demo1 flight used a lightweight Dragon (both in terms of capsule and trunk mass): from my clumsy preliminary research + 'spreadsheet' math (focusing mostly on spacecraft and F9 Block2 delivery expectations, I haven't simulated Falcon9 'block2'), a fully loaded cargo Dragon, on a Falcon9 'block2' could be ~2.5x as heavy as the mass breakout that I have assumed for the simulated Dragon COTS Demo1. On another note, something between COTS Demo1 and a full cargo Dragon on F9 'Block2', a kind of Progress equivalent (in terms of rough total mass) Dragon spacecraft flying on a Falcon9 'Block1' could perhaps be ~1.6x or so the mass of COTS Demo1 Dragon.

But again, all these are just and only very loose notes based on personal interpretations  and related personal simulation work of available scattered data: extra details would require additional work + presentation preparation + discussion. As a minor final comment, and before someone asks (once the ascent graphic is attached), I note that liftoff has not been simulated here at T-0 (although that is the moment mentioned on official press-kits and Falcon9 Users Guide, in reality there seems to exist a delay in the engines ignition / verification sequence(?) and then on lift-off time, which is what I'm doing too, at least for 'now').

António

Edit: and here is the preliminary ascent graphic for something like a Falcon Block1 (hopefully with a complete upper stage nozzle @ ~336s vac. ISP?) delivering ~6.8t Dragon (Capsule+CapsuleProp+Trunk+Payload) into ~250 km / ISS inc. orbit (have not tweaked the files yet for extra injection precision: getting ~24X x 25X km and ~51.6X inc.)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/06/2011 07:27 pm
I played around with the 2nd burn parameters as well. From the video it looks like the burn was precisely 19 seconds. I assumed an MVac propellant flow rate of 145 kg/s, not sure if it's even close to the mark, but looks like that also agrees with your expended propellant mass. Given the deltaV was about 1570 m/s and assuming an Isp of the truncated nozzle of 325 s (again, a WAG number), it gives a burnout mass of 4300 kg for the stage + trunk.

The problem is uncertainties in the flow rate and Isp will change this a lot. A 10 kg/s difference in flow rate is enough to change the burnout mass by 300 kg and a 5s Isp difference will change it by about 100 kg.

Oh and that gives a burnout acceleration of over 9 Gs. Yikes.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/06/2011 10:20 pm
FWIW, I thought that Mvac's Isp was in the range of 305-310s, but I admit it's been a while since I've bothered to check SpaceX's Falcon-9 page for updates on engine performance.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kkattula on 01/07/2011 04:32 am
FWIW, I thought that Mvac's Isp was in the range of 305-310s, but I admit it's been a while since I've bothered to check SpaceX's Falcon-9 page for updates on engine performance.

IIRC, it was originally 342, then listed as 338 before the second F9 flight. Presumably first flight performance was a little lower than expected.

Non-vacuum Merlin's vacuum Isp is 304.

That puts the trimmed Mvac somewhere between 305 and 337.  Given the exit plane area wasn't hugely reduced, I would guess somewhere north of 325.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: simcosmos on 01/07/2011 11:23 am
With this talk about engine specs the readers can understand why I'm taking time to prepare a thread about the COTS Demo1 Virtual Reconstruction: on the initial post of such eventual thread I would like to explicitly reference / link to several types of input data, in an organized and clear way (data which is currently very scattered) and then, based on such references, present the numbers + ascent procedures / etc that used as input data + constraints for the simulation(s)...

… All the above in order to properly offer a better context for the obtained simulation(s) results... and I might also be talking about doing a similar thing regarding a more generic topic (than the demo1 flight), about both Falcon9 (Block1 vs Block2) and several Dragon configurations.

But again, this kind of data gathering - or better, the related text and comments - takes time to prepare (the data gathering and references are already done, what takes time is the 'playtime' with such data, the Math and simulation brainstorms in order to try to constraint a little more the comments / doubts that I might eventually present and so that others might also have a better data set to also comment / interpret / correct / clarify as needed)...


In what relates to Falcon9 engines, I have found three references for the first stage and two main references for the upper stage.

Regarding the first stage, one of the references is about the 'block2' performance goals (as far as I'm aware, SpaceX is not there yet). The other reference seems to be about 'block1'... And then, I also found another (partial) reference that seems to be somewhere between 'block1' and 'block2'...

Regarding the upper stage, I have found two main references: one, with an higher thrust and vac. ISP of 342s seems to be the expectation for 'block2'. The other, with a lower thrust and a vac. ISP of 336s seems to be close to the current state... The 'block1' references was what I have used to produce the ascent graphic that have shared on my previous post (about an eventual Falcon9 – 6.8t Dragon COTS demo  configuration (?))

Going back, for the purpose of SpaceX COTS Demo1 virtual performance and trajectory reconstruction, there is the upper stage nozzle 'fix' to take in account: my admittedly very clumsy  guess for the simulation that resulted in the numbers presented on my previous post was ~328s vac. ISP (which resulted in a little more than 20s or so burn duration, after Dragon + cubesats release and when taking in account ignition + shutdown thrust transients).



As mentioned in the start, I would like to present the data references that have here in a single thread because, although focusing in the COTS demo flights, the spreadsheet I'm using is also about both Falcon9 and Dragon (and other payloads) eventual configurations... But that might take time (given that, for example, the Dragon mass breakouts are related with launch vehicle 'configurations', mission type, etc...)


… Hummm, if there is interest in having a slightly sooner discussion about what I have here, please someone let me know and I might then perhaps try to split the Dragon part into a separated thread (sooner than the eventual thread dedicated to the Demo1 flight + Extrapolations for  other demo flights, Falcon9 launch vehicle simulation, etc). Else, I will take my time and present / reference all in a single thread, when possible.

António.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 01/07/2011 01:54 pm
FWIW, I thought that Mvac's Isp was in the range of 305-310s, but I admit it's been a while since I've bothered to check SpaceX's Falcon-9 page for updates on engine performance.

IIRC, it was originally 342, then listed as 338 before the second F9 flight. Presumably first flight performance was a little lower than expected.

Non-vacuum Merlin's vacuum Isp is 304.

That puts the trimmed Mvac somewhere between 305 and 337.  Given the exit plane area wasn't hugely reduced, I would guess somewhere north of 325.
I know their combustion efficiency for the 1C was a couple percent below what they hoped for. The 342 might be from the earliest days.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: simcosmos on 01/08/2011 01:34 pm
Falcon9 Propulsion Assumptions on SpaceX COTS Demo1 vs Updated Merlin Specs?

Not sure if this is the correct thread to continue this topic but given that what I will write is still related with the SpaceX COTS Demo1 flight... Will attach a quick screenshot from a small part of an Excel file where I'm playing with Falcon9 + Dragon (Dragon spacecraft is in a separated sheet of the same book) in order to get early 'departure points' of overall vehicle / payload properties for a given set of injection case(s) and for eventual further simulation (performance + trajectory implementation) and related study / refinement (by comparing with 'real life' records / results vs some of the information on Vehicle's Users Guide, Press Kits, etc).

The important thing, for the moment, is the top of that spreadsheet, the propulsion numbers: I'm not sure if what I'm calling of 'block2' is still the current expectation or not. In the same way, I'm not sure if what I'm calling of 'block1' is or not close to the current development state of the engines (as used in the recent COTS demo1 flight).

I ask the reader to please do not mind about the four decimals (they are there just because of conversion factors and because are input data). Feel free to check the information (please see the provided sources) and comment / correct as needed.

I would like to note that this is just one of the pieces of the puzzle, when trying to make a virtual reconstruction of the COTS demo1 flight or when trying to use such mission information to extrapolate upcoming flights...

Another thing that I would be very interested in studying is the flight envelope vs recovery conditions of the first stage... I might be incorrect in what will write next but the very preliminary impression here is that Falcon9 first stage might be going a bit high... (a good bit more than AresI first stage expected apogee, for example, although the two stages recovery are not directly comparable because, among several other key differences - such as the longer burn time - SpaceX stage is also lighter, smaller, etc).

There are also other pieces of the puzzle which are equally or more challenging to research (but I guess that it is better to leave that for other eventual future specific  thread(s)).

Meanwhile, if someone has a fresh input or further comments, research directions, etc about Merlin current specs and updates on expected maximum goal (for block2), it would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
António
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Toner Soprano on 01/08/2011 04:42 pm
I forgot to download the interstage video from spacex.  Does anyone have a youtube link to that?  I can't find any on youtube.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: martin hegedus on 01/08/2011 06:36 pm
Does anyone know what the story is behind the different seal level and vacuum thrust specs for the first stage Merlin 1C engine?

From the COTS1 Press Kit http://www.spacex.com/downloads/cots1-20101206.pdf
Sea Level, 423 kN
Vacuum, 483 kN

From Falcon 1 page, http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php
Sea Level, 512 kN
Vacuum, 569 kN

From Falcon 9 page, http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
Sea Level, 556 kN
Vacuum, 617 kN

Is some (or all?) of the data presented incorrect?  Are the cores (i.e. thrust chamber and bell) for the three Merlin 1Cs different?  Or, are the cores the same and the difference is because of different chamber pressures?  Will future COTS missions be upping the thrust or is the 423kN what the Falcon 9 was designed for?

Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: starsilk on 01/08/2011 07:05 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110107-nasa-boosted-cots-funding.html

looks like an additional $20 million already paid out under COTS to SpaceX for more risk reduction testing of Dragon (in $5 million increments): vibration testing, Dragon solar array deployment, LIDAR testing (DragonEye), and some thermal vacuum testing.

also apparently there are a few extra $5M tests NASA wants by March, full vacuum testing of Dragon, more LIDAR work, etc.

(worth noting they're paying out similar sums to Orbital, too, so it's all nice and fair)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: martin hegedus on 01/08/2011 08:08 pm

...

The important thing, for the moment, is the top of that spreadsheet, the propulsion numbers: I'm not sure if what I'm calling of 'block2' is still the current expectation or not. In the same way, I'm not sure if what I'm calling of 'block1' is or not close to the current development state of the engines (as used in the recent COTS demo1 flight).

...

Thanks,
António

When you use the terms block1, block2 etc. it seems like there are different engines.  And that may be the case.  However, it could also be that the engines are throttled back for redundancy sake.  Maybe the max thrust of a Merlin 1C when configured for Falcon 9 is 556kN at sea level but they throttle it back to 423kN.  It is interesting to note that, when using vac thrust, there is about a 2 engine redundancy, i.e. 483*9/617 = 7.045.  Using sea level thrust the math results in 6.847.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Antares on 01/09/2011 01:31 am
Turbodynamics are highly non-linear. It shouldn't be assumed a lower throttle setting has higher margin.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: go4mars on 01/09/2011 02:41 am
Seems there is a lot of process engineering bickering going on about Spacex. Just reminder that Nasa HSF is not immune from process failure...

SpaceX has about 140 positions on their 'now hiring' pages.  Some of them relate to "configuration management" and Configuration analysis", a bunch of "quality engineer" and "quality engineering analyst" positions.  Many titles include words like "Integrator" or "Inspector".  There also seems to be a lot more "manager" positions than there used to. 

Causes? 

Is this for the switch to mass production phase from experiment phase?  Are they there yet?
Is it to address the "process engineering concerns" noted by Jim?  Will it properly address those concerns?
Other causes?
With the reportedly long work hours there, is employee attrition higher than elsewhere?

Effects?

Extra overhead and oversight for ensuring things are done consistently across the board clearly adds a financial burden ($7-12M extra per year at a guess based on their available positions) .  Is this enough to effectively render and stabilize processes? 
There are a lot of technicians shifts for around the clock work.  Could they possibly get 5 F9's and 1 or more F1e in the sky in 2011 if they fill their roster soon?  Or is there no hope of that?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: SpacexULA on 01/09/2011 02:54 pm
SpaceX has about 140 positions on their 'now hiring' pages.  Some of them relate to "configuration management" and Configuration analysis", a bunch of "quality engineer" and "quality engineering analyst" positions.  Many titles include words like "Integrator" or "Inspector".  There also seems to be a lot more "manager" positions than there used to. 
...
Extra overhead and oversight for ensuring things are done consistently across the board clearly adds a financial burden ($7-12M extra per year at a guess based on their available positions) .  Is this enough to effectively render and stabilize processes? 
There are a lot of technicians shifts for around the clock work.  Could they possibly get 5 F9's and 1 or more F1e in the sky in 2011 if they fill their roster soon?  Or is there no hope of that?

In production that is highly automated, you end up having a lot of QC analysts and inspectors.  I used to work at a local manufacturer that made aircraft brakes, and it was nothing for 2-3 production techs to keep 10 of us QC people hopping.  It's a way over simplicaiton, but they just loaded raw material and let the mills do their job, we where the ones that had to go over the parts with calipers and jigs for nearly an hour per part to make sure everyting came out right.

Even garden variety commercial aviation production is very QC heavy, what SpaceX is doing is going to be even more so. 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: simcosmos on 01/09/2011 03:45 pm
...
The important thing, for the moment, is the top of that spreadsheet, the propulsion numbers: I'm not sure if what I'm calling of 'block2' is still the current expectation or not. In the same way, I'm not sure if what I'm calling of 'block1' is or not close to the current development state of the engines (as used in the recent COTS demo1 flight).
...
Thanks,
António
When you use the terms block1, block2 etc. it seems like there are different engines.  And that may be the case.  However, it could also be that the engines are throttled back for redundancy sake.  (...)

Only for clarification, I'm also generically using the expressions 'block1' and 'block2' not only in reference to Merlin engine specs but also in what relates to other overall Falcon9 vehicle changes. Accordingly with the vehicle's Users Guide (v2009, page8, 2. Vehicle Overview):

“The initial flights of the Falcon 9, currently planned in 2009 and 2010, use the Falcon 9 Block 1. Beginning in late 2010/early 2011, SpaceX will begin launching the Falcon 9 Block 2. Block 2 features increased engine thrust, decreased launch vehicle dry mass, and increased propellant load ‐ combined with lessons learned from the flights of the Falcon 9 Block 1. This results in increased mass‐to‐orbit performance for the Falcon 9 Block 2 when compared with Block 1 performance. This performance is shown in the Falcon 9 performance tables presented later in this document.”

One of the reasons why it is challenging to try to make a virtual reconstruction of the COTS Demo1 flight (or when trying to extrapolate / check expected performances for other configurations) is the lack of complete and clear data sets.

In some areas there is almost everything available but then there is that little detail missing (or detail comparison which raises extra questions), on other areas the number of things that need to be extrapolated starts to increase... In order to have some kind of rough guess it is necessary to gather all available data, play a little with it on something like a spreadsheet and then use that work as a departure point for simulation work (which, by itself, is yet another departure point for eventual extra questions / comments).

As noted on a past post, this is all comprehensible given the heavy development phase going on at SpaceX (not only around 'basic' delivery capabilities but also around stuff such as stages recovery studies, Dragon for cargo and also aiming for crewed flights, etc) and given some natural delay in updating available public materials (or even given the eventual wish to protect information).

The above means that it is sometimes challenging to have a clear perception (I mean, with a little more detail) about where SpaceX is in its development goals (although some extra information might be possible to be extracted when looking at some images or when analysing the ascent videos and when comparing post-mission reports with selected materials available in press kits or the vehicle Users Guide, etc).



To end, and only for completeness, here goes another screenshot (will attach it soon) of my Excel book about Falcon9-Dragon (created a fresh page just for the preliminary Falcon9 Propulsion related 'brainstorm'). The objective is to try to find some coherency (in lack of better word) between available public data and my interpretation of such data (interpretation which might be incorrect, data which might be outdated, etc  – the readers please feel free to provide further input / corrections - but I guess that it might be as good as any other starting point, at least it is for my own informal study / curiosity intentions :) ).

Thanks,
António


EDIT: Despite I do not specially like to provide elements without further context, I will not explain much of what is going on at that sheet: the more informed reader might probably generically understand what is the 'objective' anyway but please have in mind that this is just and only very informal quick 'playtime' (to study numerical inputs to be used on eventual future / more detailed – needing extra work + time dedication - simulation work, when possible).

I'm then sharing this updated version in order to provide a little more context (although without writing text that might be required to explain some of the information presented). It would be nice to have extra details about what were / are the Merlin changes assumed to be for the several Falcon vehicles (Falcon1 vs 1e, Falcon9 'block1' vs 'block2'... I assume that the Heavy would use engines as in 'block2'). Meanwhile, when/if possible I will continue to (slowly) play with the numbers / simulation and see what questions the virtual results might raise.

Ok, here goes the gif:
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: kraisee on 01/09/2011 04:38 pm
Seems there is a lot of process engineering bickering going on about Spacex. Just reminder that Nasa HSF is not immune from process failure...

SpaceX has about 140 positions on their 'now hiring' pages.  Some of them relate to "configuration management" and Configuration analysis", a bunch of "quality engineer" and "quality engineering analyst" positions.  Many titles include words like "Integrator" or "Inspector".  There also seems to be a lot more "manager" positions than there used to. 

Causes?

I'm going to speculate, based on talking with a senior exec from another organization, USA.   They essentially have two 'sides' to their organization:

The first is an efficiently run corporate structure that gets the work most of the necessary done on a daily basis.

The second is essentially a mirror-image of the customer's (NASA) structure, with engineers and managers at every level that the customer wants to interface at.

I'm guessing that Space-X is in the process of making a similar 'Front Office' for their NASA, and perhaps DoD, customers.

Ross.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Antares on 01/09/2011 07:40 pm
I think that's fair to say in the case of USA, where it's a cost-plus contract.  But I think it's a less certain speculation for other business models.  In the few data points I have, there are some positions that are unique to dealing with government, but most of the customer interfaces are the ones getting the daily work done.  Granted, answering questions or collaborating on reviews takes time away from that.  To some extent as well, SpaceX is probably finding as it grows, it needs some dedicated "overhead" positions for stuff like scheduling and CM that are the glue and grease in larger organizations.  It was easy to communicate when they were a couple hundred, not so much in growing past a thousand.  Glue and grease are probably good metaphors because, if used improperly, they have the opposite effect on efficiency.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: starsilk on 01/10/2011 06:13 pm
Wowza media server was apparently running the online video of the COTS-1 demo:

http://www.benzinga.com/press-releases/11/01/p765086/wowza-media-server-2-plays-important-role-in-first-ever-commercial-spac

not sure whether that's a good recommendation or not, given the number of complaints of freezing / breakup, etc (which to be fair is presumably a capacity thing, rather than the server software)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: mr. mark on 01/10/2011 07:44 pm
Could we move engine performance studies to it's own thread. This thread is for more generic updates, not performance studies. I'm sure once that has it's own thread many people would like to review the data and participate in the discussion.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: simonbp on 01/11/2011 01:25 am
I'm going to speculate, based on talking with a senior exec from another organization, USA.   They essentially have two 'sides' to their organization:

The first is an efficiently run corporate structure that gets the work most of the necessary done on a daily basis.

The second is essentially a mirror-image of the customer's (NASA) structure, with engineers and managers at every level that the customer wants to interface at.

I'm guessing that Space-X is in the process of making a similar 'Front Office' for their NASA, and perhaps DoD, customers.

They are probably expanding for the USG contracts, but I think the recent expansion has more to do with SpaceX maturing as a company. Years ago, the design engineers were the test engineers were the launch crews. That works when you launch one rocket a year of a single, very simple type. But in 2010, launching two Falcon 9s and two near-full Dragons probably pushed their staff to the limit. To achieve the flight rate they hope for in the manifest, they likely need a lot more people on the operations and manufacturing side than they have now...
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: simcosmos on 01/11/2011 05:08 pm
Could we move engine performance studies to it's own thread. This thread is for more generic updates, not performance studies. I'm sure once that has it's own thread many people would like to review the data and participate in the discussion.

Thanks, mr. mark: I partially agree that it might be better to dedicate a separated thread about "engine performance studies" or, more generically, about attempts to virtually reconstruct the Falcon9-Dragon COTS Demo1 flight (which is something that takes time to prepare and document if the wish is to have any meaningful starting point for discussion). On another hand, I do not think that the topic of engine performance is totally off-topic for the current thread's subject...


In any case, I will stop my participation in this specific thread but, before doing so and only as loose examples, would like to write that these would be the kind of updates / discussion that I would really love to read about, topics which on my humble opinion, are not off-topic for a thread called 'SpaceX COTS Demo1 Updates' (and given that the mission has already happened):

- what was the total vehicle mass (Falcon9+Dragon)?
- in particular, what was the propellant load and the empty mass of each stage at T-0?
- what were the performance specs of the Merlin engines used on such flight?
- what was the impact of the trimmed nozzle on upper stage engine specs?
- was the upper stage engine always at 100% thrust mode?
- how far are engine specs on COTS demo1 from the 'block2' goals assumed on v2009 of SpaceX's F9 Users Guide documentation?
- what was the maximum dynamic pressure? and what were the maximum accelerations?
- what was the apogee reached by the first stage?
- what kind of additional mass impact (or other 'tweaks') might be required to recover the first stage?
- what was the payload mass breakout of such flight? (trunk + cubesats + capsule + capsule prop. + internal 'payload' + nose aerocover)
- what is the current ISP of Draco engines?
- and how about a number of other details related with the payload, capsule orbital procedures / reentry?


As far as I'm aware (please someone feel free to correct) what is known until now are orbital parameters for the first injection and also for after the second upper stage burn, some details about the cubesats and one or another scattered pieces of information about the Dragon capsule orbital operations, deorbit, reentry and recovery (but all very generic)... 


A number of hints about the COTS Demo1 ascent trajectory (burn(s) durations, altitude vs velocity vs MET calls) can be directly extracted – with more or less effort - from the lift-off / ascent / orbital videos... 

As to several other details of the vehicles and mission (answers to all the above questions), some 'things' can be extrapolated when crossing information from the available videos + images with other written materials and with known details, for example, when looking at the engine's ignition procedure, the time the vehicle used to clear the pad... Less evident information can perhaps be extracted when analyzing internal / external camera views and which might help, as another example (of many), with pitch profile extrapolation (again, when crossing with other information)... and this only about the launcher part (there are also several 'hints' about Dragon...).

These 'hints' – together with number crunching and simulation work refinement for a given set of assumption 'families' - might help to at least constraint eventual answers extrapolations to several of  the questions that have made above – thus probably allowing a better perception of what was achieved on the mission -  and might also help to anticipate the upcoming demo flights. This is what I have tried to do and that partially shared (just a little) in this thread (due, among other reasons, because either this seemed a partially indicated thread for some of what I shared or due to time limitations to open a fresh thread to write more elaborated texts), at least until there is no further official information... As a side note, this kind of exercises could also partially help reporters on questions formulations.


But ok: maybe better to reserve this thread for official SpaceX COTS Demo1 updates (if / when a post-mission official document review is released?) and keep musings based on currently available mission materials / results to other specific thread (if posting such musings at all, within availability possibilities) although, if that is to be the direction of this thread, other kind of extrapolations or interpretations (not only future but also on other past posts of all these 96 pages, since the thread was created or in similar threads) might also be kind of considered off-topic discussion  8).

Cheers,
António
(back to lurker mode)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: starsilk on 01/11/2011 05:55 pm
Planetary Radio has an interview with Jeff Richichi, SpaceX director of structural engineering, talking about the COTS-1 flight.

http://www.planetary.org/radio/show/00000427/

(SpaceX part starts at 6:20, runs to 21:35)

a few interesting things:

* the only failure AT ALL on the mission was a temperature sensor that died (not a critical one, those are triple redundant) - 8:20 in the audio

* COTS-1 Dragon is being slowly disassembled and analyzed, from the way it looks at the moment they could stick it right back on another F9 and fly it again.

* LED lighting in the Dragon, low power, very long life time (reusability)

* SpaceX makes its own thermal blankets etc, has in house team of seamstresses (is there a 'gender neutral' version of that name?)

* might be making their own spacesuits in the future.. not sure if that was just an off-the-cuff remark.


Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 01/11/2011 07:56 pm
Thanks for the link to the interview!

According to Richichi, only a temperature sensor failed.

SO... I have to ask again (as I have in the past) - What was the source for Chris Bergin's assertion about a Draco failing?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/11/2011 09:07 pm
Thanks for the link to the interview!

According to Richichi, only a temperature sensor failed.

SO... I have to ask again (as I have in the past) - What was the source for Chris Bergin's assertion about a Draco failing?
I heard it on the audio, too. Could've been a misinterpretation, or perhaps the temperature sensor was on a Draco (thus causing the initial appearance of a Draco failure).
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: starsilk on 01/11/2011 09:51 pm
Thanks for the link to the interview!

According to Richichi, only a temperature sensor failed.

SO... I have to ask again (as I have in the past) - What was the source for Chris Bergin's assertion about a Draco failing?
I heard it on the audio, too. Could've been a misinterpretation, or perhaps the temperature sensor was on a Draco (thus causing the initial appearance of a Draco failure).

he says in the interview something like: "it was just an area sensor" or "just to figure out what temperature this space got to" (can't remember the exact words..), but it definitely sounded like an unimportant sensor.. which I wouldn't equate to something to causes someone to announce that a Draco had failed.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/11/2011 09:55 pm
which I wouldn't equate to something to causes someone to announce that a Draco had failed.

FWIW, the wording on the original L2 update never explicitly stated failure. It said 17 out of 18 Dracos were working. In a different context that could I guess have been taken as "Draco checkout in progress, 17 so far verified OK". Then again, someone else on the public section also said one Draco did fail so there you have it. Certainly neither confirmed nor denied by SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: go4mars on 01/11/2011 10:33 pm
Certainly neither confirmed nor denied by SpaceX.

Except when Elon said in the post-splashdown press conference that all 18 dracos worked perfectly. 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 01/11/2011 10:57 pm
 Is it possible that 1 Draco isn't meant to be used unless another one fails, or they only light all 18 in unusual or high payload circumstances? Could account for the comments.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 01/12/2011 12:15 am
Then again, someone else on the public section also said one Draco did fail so there you have it. Certainly neither confirmed nor denied by SpaceX.

How in the world do you read "All engines/dracos worked" (by Elon) or "only a temperature sensor failed" (by Richichi) as anything but a denial?

I'm not ruling it out - perhaps SpaceX could cover it up. But if the L2 source is as ambiguous as some claim (I do not have L2 access so I cannot verify), I would say that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that a thruster failure occurred.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: mr. mark on 01/12/2011 12:59 am
Lars_J, I have to agree. Seems no one said anything about it except here and we are not sure who. There's not much proof in that. It's probably best to leave the speculation alone until someone can come up with a concrete source.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: tigerade on 01/12/2011 01:56 am
Is it possible that all 18 Draco's did work perfectly, and the actual report about a Draco failing was in error?

I just don't think they would deny a Draco failing if that happened, it's not their style.  Besides, they can lose any two Draco's is in mission and still be successful (depending on their position).  I would like the confusion to be cleared up.  But right now I don't believe there is a cover-up.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: iamlucky13 on 01/12/2011 02:10 am
* the only failure AT ALL on the mission was a temperature sensor that died (not a critical one, those are triple redundant) - 8:20 in the audio


*ahem* I think he means, the only failure on the vehicle.

I'm still a little curious about the kerosene disconnect and the arm that fell off the tower.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: docmordrid on 01/12/2011 02:18 am
It stuck. What's to do but find out why and fix it for next time? My guess is this can't be done without examining the still-earthbound pieces for imprpper marks or malfunction. We sure can't do that by skulling.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Nomadd on 01/12/2011 02:49 am
 Maybe the failed sensor was on the Draco in question and gave someone the mistaken idea that the thuster had failed. Not as much fun as an evil conspiracy to cover up a minor problem I realize.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: starsilk on 01/12/2011 02:56 am
* the only failure AT ALL on the mission was a temperature sensor that died (not a critical one, those are triple redundant) - 8:20 in the audio


*ahem* I think he means, the only failure on the vehicle.

I'm still a little curious about the kerosene disconnect and the arm that fell off the tower.

my apologies. I should have made it clearer that the interview was only about the COTS-1 Dragon, not the F9 flight. that's my wording, it's clear from context in the interview that Richichi is only discussing Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: SpacexULA on 01/12/2011 03:48 am
How in the world do you read "All engines/dracos worked" (by Elon) or "only a temperature sensor failed" (by Richichi) as anything but a denial?

I'm not ruling it out - perhaps SpaceX could cover it up. But if the L2 source is as ambiguous as some claim (I do not have L2 access so I cannot verify), I would say that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that a thruster failure occurred.

Or the simpler / does not require a conspiracy answer is that the draco had multiple sensors on it, 1 sensor was giving bum readings when they activated the engine, so they just didn't fire the engine further while in orbit.  But once they got it on the ground they realized it was just a failed sensor and the draco was fine and had fired nominally.

That wold allow everyone to be truthful, and makes a lot of since.  But it might just be easier to call it a SpaceX "cover up".

Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/12/2011 07:57 am
Then again, someone else on the public section also said one Draco did fail so there you have it. Certainly neither confirmed nor denied by SpaceX.

How in the world do you read "All engines/dracos worked" (by Elon) or "only a temperature sensor failed" (by Richichi) as anything but a denial?

Denial and spin ("not lying, just not telling the whole truth") for PR purposes are not the same. SpaceX don't have a tendency lately to bring up something that fails unless someone else brings it up for them. All part of that "everyone's out to get us" paranoia, being commercial poster child and all that.

Not saying I blame them, just that I wouldn't take everything Elon says at a post flight press conference at face value. Take that how you will. As for Richichi, well, he didn't exactly deny it, did he?

It's illogical to expect there weren't other anomalies in the flight of a brand new vehicle, no matter how many "it all went perfectly" qualifications one applies. Mission objectives went perfectly, doesn't mean everything from a technical standpoint went perfectly.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on this.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: beancounter on 01/13/2011 01:09 am
Then again, someone else on the public section also said one Draco did fail so there you have it. Certainly neither confirmed nor denied by SpaceX.

How in the world do you read "All engines/dracos worked" (by Elon) or "only a temperature sensor failed" (by Richichi) as anything but a denial?

Denial and spin ("not lying, just not telling the whole truth") for PR purposes are not the same. SpaceX don't have a tendency lately to bring up something that fails unless someone else brings it up for them. All part of that "everyone's out to get us" paranoia, being commercial poster child and all that.

Not saying I blame them, just that I wouldn't take everything Elon says at a post flight press conference at face value. Take that how you will. As for Richichi, well, he didn't exactly deny it, did he?

It's illogical to expect there weren't other anomalies in the flight of a brand new vehicle, no matter how many "it all went perfectly" qualifications one applies. Mission objectives went perfectly, doesn't mean everything from a technical standpoint went perfectly.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on this.
Well if I were on the jury, I'd have to say that the mission was a complete success irrespective of a Draco or sensor failure (if one or the other happened). 
All the milestones were obviously met.  NASA made its payment for the mission since the vehicle apparently fulfilled their requirements and the continuing discussion surrounding combining COTS 2 and 3 missions give credence to that view.
I'll bet on a combined mission being more likely than not even at this early stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: corrodedNut on 01/13/2011 09:55 pm
I forgot to download the interstage video from spacex.  Does anyone have a youtube link to that?  I can't find any on youtube.

See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg680216#msg680216
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: KSC Engineer on 01/14/2011 12:15 am
Not sure where to post this but thought you'd enjoy a photo of the SpaceX office in Huntsville.  I was in Huntsville today, walked in to a building for another meeting and noticed their suite on the first floor although I didn't see any lights on.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: corrodedNut on 01/24/2011 07:21 pm
The SpaceX file server has 5 new images and an mp4 of the highlights video:

https://send.spacex.com/bds/Login.do?id=A043517252&p1=naj20dpsbfegcidgdlgffcj20

Most of these images are not "new" but they are much higher res.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: telomerase99 on 01/25/2011 05:35 pm
Then again, someone else on the public section also said one Draco did fail so there you have it. Certainly neither confirmed nor denied by SpaceX.

How in the world do you read "All engines/dracos worked" (by Elon) or "only a temperature sensor failed" (by Richichi) as anything but a denial?

Denial and spin ("not lying, just not telling the whole truth") for PR purposes are not the same. SpaceX don't have a tendency lately to bring up something that fails unless someone else brings it up for them. All part of that "everyone's out to get us" paranoia, being commercial poster child and all that.

Not saying I blame them, just that I wouldn't take everything Elon says at a post flight press conference at face value. Take that how you will. As for Richichi, well, he didn't exactly deny it, did he?

It's illogical to expect there weren't other anomalies in the flight of a brand new vehicle, no matter how many "it all went perfectly" qualifications one applies. Mission objectives went perfectly, doesn't mean everything from a technical standpoint went perfectly.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on this.

You honestly think that announcing in a press conference that a sensor in a thruster malfunctioned after orbit was reached and a new space craft returned is necessary?

Its kind of like you are fighting on the wrong side of yesterdays war.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 01/25/2011 05:47 pm
You honestly think that announcing in a press conference that a sensor in a thruster malfunctioned after orbit was reached and a new space craft returned is necessary?

No, I don't. I'm not that naive. Where, in fact, have I stated it is necessary?

I'm suggesting some people here are naive to think that absence of public statement on issues experienced implies there were no such issues.

Did SpaceX tell you in their press release that the lidar in the DragonEye flown on STS-127 failed at one point? Of course they didn't. And I don't expect them to. There is a difference between holding up information and claiming (as some are here) that that, by itself constitutes denial.

I thought I made that perfectly clear in the last post. Guess not.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: daveglo on 01/30/2011 05:25 pm
The SpaceX file server has 5 new images and an mp4 of the highlights video:

https://send.spacex.com/bds/Login.do?id=A043517252&p1=naj20dpsbfegcidgdlgffcj20

Most of these images are not "new" but they are much higher res.

The updated video includes new camera angles out of the window of the Dragon during launch, plus audio tracks of separation and start events, and a new video of the restart of the second stage to a high elliptical orbit after Dragon separation.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 02/09/2011 07:36 pm
This article has a hi-res image of the Dragon: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2011/02/09/tesla-has-landed/

If I'm looking at it correctly, that's a hefty TPS thickness on the capsule walls.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: stockman on 02/09/2011 07:39 pm
This article has a hi-res image of the Dragon: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2011/02/09/tesla-has-landed/

If I'm looking at it correctly, that's a hefty TPS thickness on the capsule walls.

wow that closeup really shows that the sides took some beating... looks like some chips taken out of it..
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 02/09/2011 08:38 pm
wow that closeup really shows that the sides took some beating... looks like some chips taken out of it..

The only thing I see that looks like damage is the tear-out for the parachute line.  That is supposed to happen.  Look at the images from the drop test. 

The remainder of the exterior looks pretty good, particularly considering its exposure.  Just a bit of discoloration.  Do you see additional damage?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 02/09/2011 09:00 pm
Nice picture!

Yep, it looks mostly like discoloration and paint flakes that have come off the insulation material for the sidewalls. (that insulation looks about 1-2" thick)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: stockman on 02/09/2011 09:13 pm
wow that closeup really shows that the sides took some beating... looks like some chips taken out of it..

The only thing I see that looks like damage is the tear-out for the parachute line.  That is supposed to happen.  Look at the images from the drop test. 

The remainder of the exterior looks pretty good, particularly considering its exposure.  Just a bit of discoloration.  Do you see additional damage?

Maybe it is just the paint.. when I looked at this the first time it looked like chunks had been taken out but now it does seem like maybe just the surface paint... Not that bad then...
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: arnezami on 02/10/2011 05:46 am
Question: is the dragon dark on (mostly) one side due to its offset in its center of mass? (or better: due to the heat shield center being off-center in relation to the center of dragon as a whole)?

Here you can see one side is quite "cripsy":

(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101215_10.jpg)

whereas the other side is quite untouched:

(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101215_11.jpg)

And when you see the heatshield, you can see its not symmetric, but "favoring" one side:

(http://www.spacex.com/00Graphics/Images/Dec07%20Web%20Update/19.jpg)

(http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/F9-002_9_Heatshield_WEB.jpg)

Just thought the two:

- one-sided-crispyness
- assymetrically-tilted-heat-shield-shape

are related. :)

I know Elon talked about steering by using an offset center off mass, creating a tilt:

http://fora.tv/2009/04/07/Uber_Entrepreneur_An_Evening_with_Elon_Musk#fullprogram (http://fora.tv/2009/04/07/Uber_Entrepreneur_An_Evening_with_Elon_Musk#fullprogram)

Click on the part: "16. Aiming a Space Capsule on Landing".

Food for thought...
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Downix on 02/10/2011 05:47 am
Notice the burn is on the side opposite to the door.  This was an issue I noticed with Apollo, the capsule doors had scorch marks up to near the door.  I would not want to climb out of it for a bit after landing, due to this.  But tilting it, you'd now have a much cooler exit I'd imagine.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: rklaehn on 02/10/2011 06:11 am
Question: is the dragon dark on (mostly) one side due to its offset in its center of mass? (or better: due to the heat shield center being off-center in relation to the center of dragon as a whole)?

Yes, definitely. The "crispy" wall is the one that is closer to the shockwave due to the tilt of the capsule. If the capsule center of gravity was on the axis of symmetry, all sides would be equally crispy.

See this apollo reentry drawing. The crispy side would be the upper side in this image.
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/spaceship-apollo-12.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: hop on 02/10/2011 06:14 am
Just thought the two:

- one-sided-crispyness
- assymetrically-tilted-heat-shield-shape
Yes, this is normal for lifting capsules. Here's a Soyuz showing it's 'crispy' and 'less crispy' sides
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/5034406924/
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: arnezami on 02/10/2011 06:25 am
Nice  :)

Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Lars_J on 02/10/2011 06:32 am
Here is an image showing some fluid dynamic simulation for Dragon reentry. Note how it is angled such that one of its sidewalls (the more scorched one) is almost paralell to the air flow - at a 15.5 degree angle:

http://www.spacex.com/00Graphics/Images/Dec07%20Web%20Update/17.jpg

EDIT: Hmm - I never noticed it is this image until now - but note that the model has 4 extruded areas modeled, just like the most recent image of the crew Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Antares on 02/10/2011 04:41 pm
Note on the second picture on 1456 that it looks like the SpaceX logo was strategically placed to be on the "rare" side rather than the well-done side.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: yg1968 on 02/10/2011 04:56 pm
This video at 6:45 shows part of the Dragon landing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h_d6YVA1Kg
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: ugordan on 02/10/2011 05:06 pm
This video at 6:45 shows part of the Dragon landing:

That's from the parachute drop test earlier.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: stockman on 02/10/2011 05:10 pm
This video at 6:45 shows part of the Dragon landing:

I don't think that is the actual landing from COTS 1 - I think they spliced together highights from COTS 1 and the Dragon Drop test done a few months previously... The splashdown capsule looked a little too clean to be the one that actually flew...

Nice video video overall however.. thanks
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: corrodedNut on 02/10/2011 05:16 pm
With every passing day it seems more and more likely that there is simply no video of the splashdown, which I find disappointing. I also expected there would be video through-the-window during reentry, and perhaps a camera on the CBM hatch for an upward angle view of parachute deployment.

Oh well, maybe next time.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: yg1968 on 02/10/2011 05:33 pm
This video at 6:45 shows part of the Dragon landing:

That's from the parachute drop test earlier.

I stand corrected. They made it seem like it was from the splashdown since it was shown right after liftoff of Falcon 9. Their little video trick worked on me...
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 02/11/2011 04:45 am
It just occurred to me that the charred side of Dragon is where the parachute lines run.

That means that is is the "down" side when reentering, but the "up" during the descent under the parachutes.  The drop test footage shows the capsule hanging about thirty degree off of level.

When flying a reentry with lift, would the orientation be felt by the passengers?

Would the direction of the acceleration force be different on launch and reentry?

Would they do reentry with their feet "down", but finish with their heads down?  Or the other way around?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/11/2011 05:52 am
It just occurred to me that the charred side of Dragon is where the parachute lines run.

That means that is is the "down" side when reentering, but the "up" during the descent under the parachutes.  The drop test footage shows the capsule hanging about thirty degree off of level.

When flying a reentry with lift, would the orientation be felt by the passengers?

Would the direction of the acceleration force be different on launch and reentry?

Would they do reentry with their feet "down", but finish with their heads down?  Or the other way around?

See attached.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Proponent on 02/11/2011 06:03 am
What the passengers will feel is the acceleration:  "down" will be in the direction opposite the acceleration vector, which in turn is the vector sum of the lift and drag vectors in the diagram posted by HMXHMX.  If, for example, the capsule is flying at an angle of attack of 15 degrees and the resulting drag force is 5 degrees off of the direction of flight, then the passengers will sense that the capsule is tilted by 10 degrees.

Post-splashdown pictures of Dragon seem to show that the hatch was on the rare side of the capsule.  So, as one expect and as is consistent with, for example, Apollo, passengers would feel that their feet were "lower" than their heads during re-entry.

Which photo is it that shows the parachute lines on the crispy side?  I agree this would suggest that the capsule splashes down with the passengers' heads lower than their feet, but this seems odd.  It's also at odds with Gemini and Apollo practice:  see this photo (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/19_apollo-1-bis-6--7-bis-10-gelogen-d/apollo-09-splashdown-wasserung.jpg), for example. 
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/11/2011 07:21 am
It just occurred to me that the charred side of Dragon is where the parachute lines run.

That means that is is the "down" side when reentering, but the "up" during the descent under the parachutes.  The drop test footage shows the capsule hanging about thirty degree off of level.

Not up but 'backward'.  If you watch the COTS-D video, you can see that, due to the fact the parachutes are in the lower SIM ring, they come out of the 'back' of the capsule, actually the downward-aligned part, during the initial phase.  It isn't until the parachute lines come clear of the vehicle that the vertical axis aligns with the parachutes.

When flying a reentry with lift, would the orientation be felt by the passengers?

The main force felt on the crew and passengers would be along the vehicle's vertical axis towards Earth due to deceleration.  The 'head-up/heads-down' is an illusion.  Down is 'forwards' (the direction of flight) for the entire re-entry/recovery phase.

Would they do reentry with their feet "down", but finish with their heads down?  Or the other way around?

The heads-down posture is simply so that the crew can see the horizon in case of having to manually steer the vehicle.  As stated above 'down' (the direction of perceptible gravity-like acceleration) would be along the line of flight towards Earth throughout this phase.

Which photo is it that shows the parachute lines on the crispy side?  I agree this would suggest that the capsule splashes down with the passengers' heads lower than their feet, but this seems odd.  It's also at odds with Gemini and Apollo practice:  see this photo (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/19_apollo-1-bis-6--7-bis-10-gelogen-d/apollo-09-splashdown-wasserung.jpg), for example. 

Actually, it's the other way around.

Think about it: The parachutes are attached on the burnt side (the side over the crew's heads).  So, that end will actually be slightly higher up as the line from the attachment point to the centre of gravity would tilt the capsule slightly towards the hatch or 'foot' side.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: JayP on 02/11/2011 02:24 pm

Actually, it's the other way around.

Think about it: The parachutes are attached on the burnt side (the side over the crew's heads).  So, that end will actually be slightly higher up as the line from the attachment point to the centre of gravity would tilt the capsule slightly towards the hatch or 'foot' side.

What are you basing your assumption that the crew's heads are away from the hatch on? All of the images on SpaceX's website indicate that their heads will be aligned just to the left of the hatch (The hatch will be just to the right of streight overhead when seen from inside the vehicle).

Plus, feet towards the hatch would make escape on the pad much more difficult.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/11/2011 03:21 pm
What are you basing your assumption that the crew's heads are away from the hatch on? All of the images on SpaceX's website indicate that their heads will be aligned just to the left of the hatch (The hatch will be just to the right of streight overhead when seen from inside the vehicle).

Plus, feet towards the hatch would make escape on the pad much more difficult.

It doesn't really matter; The only thing that matters in terms of this discussion is that the primary force would always be downwards through the TPS (deceleration).
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: JayP on 02/11/2011 05:09 pm
What are you basing your assumption that the crew's heads are away from the hatch on? All of the images on SpaceX's website indicate that their heads will be aligned just to the left of the hatch (The hatch will be just to the right of streight overhead when seen from inside the vehicle).

Plus, feet towards the hatch would make escape on the pad much more difficult.

It doesn't really matter; The only thing that matters in terms of this discussion is that the primary force would always be downwards through the TPS (deceleration).

A. The decleration force will be opposite of the drag force, which this discussion has established will be at some angle to the axis of the vehicle. The magnitude and radial direction of the force is the question. A large enough latteral component of that force would cause blood flow in that direction. After 6 mounths in freefall, red-out, with the possability of a hemorrhagic stroke, is nothing to take litely.

B. Your statement I quoted above was in reguards to the vehicles attitude while under the chutes, not during the high drag reentry phase. With the parachute bridle on that side, the  direction of the offset vector would reverse when the chutes open.

C. Your missing the point of my question. I was just curious what information you had seen which would indicate that the couches are oriented that way. I have seen nothig of the sort.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 02/15/2011 05:23 am
C. Your missing the point of my question. I was just curious what information you had seen which would indicate that the couches are oriented that way. I have seen nothig of the sort.

The CAD drawing on the left from the SpaceX website shows the astronauts' heads towards the hatch.  (You can see the faint image of the hatch with its window.) Comparing to the photo on the right side this will put them feet down during reentry, but head down when the Dragon is descending under the parachutes.

Yuck.  I wonder why they chose this?  There appear constraints about keeping the hatch out of the parachute shroud lines, but is there no other choice?
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: JayP on 02/15/2011 02:41 pm
C. Your missing the point of my question. I was just curious what information you had seen which would indicate that the couches are oriented that way. I have seen nothig of the sort.

The CAD drawing on the left from the SpaceX website shows the astronauts' heads towards the hatch.  (You can see the faint image of the hatch with its window.) Comparing to the photo on the right side this will put them feet down during reentry, but head down when the Dragon is descending under the parachutes.

Yuck.  I wonder why they chose this?  There appear constraints about keeping the hatch out of the parachute shroud lines, but is there no other choice?

Yeah, that is what I saw too. Of course, the CAD image shows a different Draco arangement than was flown and it shows a standard, passive CBM, which would indicate a mode II docking (SSRMS grapple and berth with no back-up option) so it is a little suspect to begin with. I was wondering if there was any other info out there.
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: yg1968 on 02/15/2011 04:46 pm
An update on the combination of COTS-2 and 3.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/110213cots2/
Title: Re: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates
Post by: Comga on 02/16/2011 03:27 am
An update on the combination of COTS-2 and 3.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/110213cots2/

Little new here.

Flight still nominally in July.  Hardware ready by June, including the berthing adapter.

One interesting, but not new, item is that the ISS crew for COTS-2 will be trained and prepared for the rendezvous mission, but the subsequent crew will be trained for the berthing COTS-3 mission.