Author Topic: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates (Read 662227 times)

Antares · « **Reply #80 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.

beancounter · « **Reply #81 on:** 08/20/2010 08:21 am »

Quote from: 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.

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.

corrodedNut · « **Reply #82 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/

docmordrid · « **Reply #83 on:** 08/20/2010 09:28 pm »

Flight Dragon is at the cape, along with both stages 'eh?

So much for paper and PowerPoint....

telomerase99 · « **Reply #84 on:** 08/21/2010 12:50 am »

Check out the video of the drop test!

stockman · « **Reply #85 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"

RocketEconomist327 · « **Reply #86 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

docmordrid · « **Reply #87 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.

Rhyshaelkan · « **Reply #88 on:** 08/22/2010 07:44 pm »

They better load the thing with barf-bags.

Well I suppose it stabilized nicely when the main chutes came out.

zaitcev · « **Reply #89 on:** 08/23/2010 07:23 pm »

Quote from: 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.

Unfortunately this also reduces the maximum allowable surface winds.
-- Pete

go2mars · « **Reply #90 on:** 08/23/2010 08:34 pm »

Quote from: zaitcev on 08/23/2010 07:23 pm

Quote from: 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.
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.

Olaf · « **Reply #91 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

aquarius · « **Reply #92 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.

Hauerg · « **Reply #93 on:** 08/30/2010 05:26 pm »

Quote from: 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.

"Supersafe" was the word Elon used IIRC.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #94 on:** 08/30/2010 07:27 pm »

Quote from: Hauerg on 08/30/2010 05:26 pm

Quote from: 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.

"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.

Halidon · « **Reply #95 on:** 08/30/2010 09:28 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 08/30/2010 07:27 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.

butters · « **Reply #96 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.

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #97 on:** 08/31/2010 12:59 am »

Quote from: 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.

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

beancounter · « **Reply #98 on:** 08/31/2010 02:01 am »

Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/31/2010 12:59 am

Quote from: 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.

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.

Jim · « **Reply #99 on:** 08/31/2010 02:08 am »

Quote from: 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.

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.