Author Topic: SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates  (Read 638863 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #840 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.

Offline Retired Downrange

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Turks & Caicos Islands
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #841 on: 12/07/2010 04:54 pm »
...and then Discovery was heard to say to Falcon 9:

"My cracks are bigger than your cracks."

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #842 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?
« Last Edit: 12/07/2010 04:58 pm by ugordan »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #843 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!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #844 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.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2010 05:03 pm by Kabloona »

Offline Swatch

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Official Aerospace Engineer as of June 13th, 2009
  • Cincinnati
    • ProjectApollo/NASSP: Virtual Systems and Flight Simulation of the Apollo Program
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #845 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
Ex-Rocket Scientist in Training, now Rocket Scientist!
M-F trying to make the world of the future a smaller place through expanding horizons...

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #846 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.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2010 05:39 pm by mr. mark »

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #847 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.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #848 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.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #849 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.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2010 05:46 pm by yg1968 »

Offline KSC Engineer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #850 on: 12/07/2010 05:54 pm »
You sound naïve. 

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #851 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.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2010 05:56 pm by jimvela »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #852 on: 12/07/2010 06:04 pm »
You sound naïve. 
Is it naïveté or is it merely a different perspective than your own?

nooneofconsequence has it right. As does Jim, of course.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline KSC Engineer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #853 on: 12/07/2010 06:05 pm »
Depends on who has the most facts.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #854 on: 12/07/2010 06:05 pm »
You sound naïve. 

I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions. Your point has been taken, I apologize for the error of my ways.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #855 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?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #856 on: 12/07/2010 06:23 pm »
You sound naïve. 

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. 


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #857 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.

Offline iamlucky13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #858 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.

Offline Space Pete

Re: COTS Demo 1
« Reply #859 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
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Tags:
 

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