Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2015 09:34 pm
NSF Threads for SpX-DM1 : Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36966.0) / Updates (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47095.0)
NSF Articles for SpX-DM1 :
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=DM-1 (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=DM-1)
Successful launch March 2, 2019 at 2:49am EST (0749 UTC) on Falcon 9 using new booster B1051 from LC-39A. ASDS booster landing was successful.
Quote from: @StephenClark
NASA got back to me. "The total mass of the Crew Dragon [at time of docking to ISS] is 26,577 pounds. It will be delivering 449.7 pounds and currently is expected to return 328.5 pounds of cargo, although that is subject to change."
"Oh but Chris this is so far away!" Heh - it's just going to be THAT historic I want to start a thread for it now, given it's got an official placeholder on the L2 version of the FPIP master schedule. This one is up first, so let's do this thread and go from there. Yes, I know they can slip.....
So, a general thread for discussion and updates (the main threads - and yes a party thread, ugg ;) will be forthcoming nearer the time).
Dragon V2 Articles:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=Dragon+V2 (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=Dragon+V2)
Article with the dates installed - to start this mission thread
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/commercial-crew-demo-missions-dragon-cst-100/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/commercial-crew-demo-missions-dragon-cst-100/)
Keep the thread specific to this mission. We have Dragon 2, CCtCAP threads and such in the general sections.
Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
SpaceX News Articles (Recent) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/)
SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0)
SpaceX Dragon Articles (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dragon/)
SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=55.0)
L2 SpaceX Section (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0)
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/05/2015 09:42 pm
In all seriousness, I think SpaceX could certainly handle this given date given the launch flow will have matured considerably by the end of 2016, if their performance this year is anything to go by, but I deeply worry about the funding for Commercial Crew... so I'm kinda not expecting this until perhaps spring '17...
Post by: kdhilliard on 03/05/2015 10:00 pm
Article with the dates installed - to start this mission thread
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/commercial-crew-demo-missions-dragon-cst-100/
You surprised me with your FPIP dates of December 2016 for SpX-DM1 and April 2017 for SpX-DM2. This is nine and six months to the right of March 2016 and October 2016 from the CCtCap milestone list (and also from the NASA/SpaceX/Boeing presser two months ago, IIRC). The Boeing dates, on the other hand, are just about what I expected (April 2017 for Boe-OFT and July 2017 for Boe-CFT).
Post by: Marslauncher on 03/05/2015 10:22 pm
2015-03-05 21_26_40-index.php (850×468)The April target would also overlap with the proposed date SpaceX’s CRS-14/Spx-14 Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) mission"
So that means there would a Dragon 1.0, Dragon 2 AND a CST all at the same time (assuming zero slips)?
Wow if that is the case!
John C
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/06/2015 01:13 am
So per the article "For Boeing, its CST-100 will first launch on an uncrewed test flight to the Station via the “Boe-OFT” mission in Apr, 2017 – on a 30 days mission, ending with a parachute assisted return. " and then "This would be followed by “SpX-DM2″, a crewed flight, launching in April of 2017, on a 14 day mission. This would mark the first time astronauts have launched from American soil on a US built spacecraft since Atlantis’ STS-135 mission in 2011.
2015-03-05 21_26_40-index.php (850×468)The April target would also overlap with the proposed date SpaceX’s CRS-14/Spx-14 Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) mission"
So that means there would a Dragon 1.0, Dragon 2 AND a CST all at the same time (assuming zero slips)?
Wow if that is the case!
John C
That would be a massive if with it being so far out and I would assume they'd spread it out as things progress. I was thinking a Dragon 1 and 2 being at the ISS at the same time was more on the cards....and went with that.
Post by: Comga on 03/06/2015 06:28 am
So per the article "For Boeing, its CST-100 will first launch on an uncrewed test flight to the Station via the “Boe-OFT” mission in Apr, 2017 – on a 30 days mission, ending with a parachute assisted return. " and then "This would be followed by “SpX-DM2″, a crewed flight, launching in April of 2017, on a 14 day mission. This would mark the first time astronauts have launched from American soil on a US built spacecraft since Atlantis’ STS-135 mission in 2011.
2015-03-05 21_26_40-index.php (850×468)The April target would also overlap with the proposed date SpaceX’s CRS-14/Spx-14 Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) mission"
So that means there would a Dragon 1.0, Dragon 2 AND a CST all at the same time (assuming zero slips)?
Wow if that is the case!
John C
There was a statement from JSC (can't remember who or when) to the effect that the surest way to avoid visiting vehicle schedule conflicts at the ISS was to schedule them at the same time and wait for differences in their schedule slips. It was said when early SpaceX and Orbital CRS flights looked like they were scheduled for the same time.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/06/2015 08:46 am
Post by: cuddihy on 03/06/2015 02:26 pm
Post by: woods170 on 03/06/2015 02:54 pm
"Oh but Chris this is so far away!"I just bet a crate of Hertog Jan's that this thread (or the combination of thread 1, 2, 3, etc. in case of succeeding threads) will be at no less than 30 pages before we hit December 2016, regardless of the launch being in that month, or not.
Post by: sghill on 03/06/2015 03:11 pm
My party thread title suggestion: "The Final Score- Dragon 2: SPX-DM1"
Post by: bunker9603 on 03/06/2015 04:13 pm
Oh, can't we start the party thread now just to keep this discussion thread clean for the next two years?
My party thread title suggestion: "The Final Score- Dragon 2: SPX-DM1"
Very clever!
Post by: pericynthion on 03/06/2015 05:48 pm
Post by: cscott on 03/06/2015 06:10 pm
Is there any info on whether SpaceX plans to fly their own astronauts on any test flights of Dragon 2? (SpX-DM2 or otherwise)Last time they were asked (by helodriver at the dragon 2 unveil, if I'm remembering right) they said that NASA has decided that it preferred all-NASA crews on the flights it was paying for. Might have changed since then, of course, but I think that's the most recent information we have.
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 03/06/2015 06:40 pm
I just bet a crate of Hertog Jan's that this thread (or the combination of thread 1, 2, 3, etc. in case of succeeding threads) will be at no less than 30 pages before we hit December 2016, regardless of the launch being in that month, or not.
Free beer to anyone who has their profile set to display 100 posts per page!
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 03/06/2015 07:00 pm
I just bet a crate of Hertog Jan's that this thread (or the combination of thread 1, 2, 3, etc. in case of succeeding threads) will be at no less than 30 pages before we hit December 2016, regardless of the launch being in that month, or not.
Free beer to anyone who has their profile set to display 100 posts per page!
I'm sure I'll get deleted, but just checked, and 50 posts per page is the max...
As for On Topic... It looks to me that SpaceX has the inside track and if they had the "permissions" they could be a few months left of the line if allowed, but the idea is to not embarrass Boeing and NASA... but we'll see... but that business of "no manned flights on Gov't dollars without NASA astros" seems to be a dead give away... that's under two years... now is it realistic for SpaceX to be able to put men into Space by mid to late 2016... let the pages roll by...
Post by: rcoppola on 03/06/2015 07:32 pm
Meaning, what are the opportunities/procedures from the ISS side needed to implement some ops planning wrt interfacing with D2. They must be thinking this through considering how exacting their planning is with everything the ISS interfaces with.
Will SpaceX have "spacesuit-wearing-dummies" on board with limited cargo in their appropriate places for testing and simulation purposes? I know it sounds more mundane then all the other exciting things this mission will need to accomplish but I find these other details from the ISS crew perspective fascinating as well.
Post by: swervin on 03/06/2015 07:51 pm
For this un-crewed DM1 mission, when D2 "Docks" with the ISS, what do we suppose the protocols will be?
Meaning, what are the opportunities/procedures from the ISS side needed to implement some ops planning wrt interfacing with D2. They must be thinking this through considering how exacting their planning is with everything the ISS interfaces with.
Will SpaceX have "spacesuit-wearing-dummies" on board with limited cargo in their appropriate places for testing and simulation purposes? I know it sounds more mundane then all the other exciting things this mission will need to accomplish but I find these other details from the ISS crew perspective fascinating as well.
Lets make sure we see the tree's through the forest, here. There are many milestones to accomplish before this mission ever occurs. One of the near-rocks is the delivery of IDA-1 and IDA-2 (both on upcoming SpX/CRS flights). As these types of milestones start to get checked off the to-do list, excitement will build. Big picture, what are the major milestones (flight hardware wise, not overlooking the PDR's and such) that need to be successful for this date to be anywhere near realistic?
-Pad Abort
-In-flt Abort
-IDA's
...?
Cheers,
Splinter
Post by: rcoppola on 03/06/2015 08:03 pm
Let's make sure nothing of the sort. Because there are and will be many threads for all the things you mentioned. This thread is specific to the actual DM1 mission, which is why I posted the questions I did.For this un-crewed DM1 mission, when D2 "Docks" with the ISS, what do we suppose the protocols will be?
Meaning, what are the opportunities/procedures from the ISS side needed to implement some ops planning wrt interfacing with D2. They must be thinking this through considering how exacting their planning is with everything the ISS interfaces with.
Will SpaceX have "spacesuit-wearing-dummies" on board with limited cargo in their appropriate places for testing and simulation purposes? I know it sounds more mundane then all the other exciting things this mission will need to accomplish but I find these other details from the ISS crew perspective fascinating as well.
Lets make sure we see the tree's through the forest, here. There are many milestones to accomplish before this mission ever occurs. One of the near-rocks is the delivery of IDA-1 and IDA-2 (both on upcoming SpX/CRS flights). As these types of milestones start to get checked off the to-do list, excitement will build. Big picture, what are the major milestones (flight hardware wise, not overlooking the PDR's and such) that need to be successful for this date to be anywhere near realistic?
-Pad Abort
-In-flt Abort
-IDA's
...?
Cheers,
Splinter
Post by: woods170 on 03/06/2015 08:07 pm
"Oh but Chris this is so far away!"I just bet a crate of Hertog Jan's that this thread (or the combination of thread 1, 2, 3, etc. in case of succeeding threads) will be at no less than 30 pages before we hit December 2016, regardless of the launch being in that month, or not.
I will note that this bet is a calculated one:
First of all: SpaceX is always (much) late in meeting it's biggest milestones (so is Boeing by the way...). The resulting lack of news over prolonged periods of time will lead to plenty of speculation (as with all SpaceX threads) and thus a nicely increasing post-count (and associated page-count)
Second: Like gramps I had checked: the max post-count per page is 50, making for a meager 1500 posts until I can collect my beer. The character I made the bet with didn't check. Too bad for him.
Btw: that 1500 posts in 21 months translates into less than 3 posts per day, on average. Easily done on a SpaceX thread.
Back on topic: it seems that NASA (and industry) learned an important lesson from STS-1. First Orion goes up unmanned (twice no less with EFT-1 and EM-1) and now the first flights of Dragon 2 and CST-100 will be unmanned as well.
Post by: AJW on 03/06/2015 09:11 pm
Post by: deruch on 03/07/2015 02:29 am
Post by: Prober on 03/07/2015 03:56 pm
Oh, can't we start the party thread now just to keep this discussion thread clean for the next two years?
My party thread title suggestion: "The Final Score- Dragon 2: SPX-DM1"
nah, "The Final Countdown- Dragon 2: SPX-DM1" and I know the proper 1980's music to go along with it :)
Post by: dror on 03/07/2015 06:17 pm
Will the first crew demo flight assist in crew rotation ? (This question may not fit in this thread )
Post by: nlec on 03/07/2015 07:24 pm
Will the first crew demo flight assist in crew rotation ? (This question may not fit in this thread )I don't think this will be done since it will require the incoming crew to bring his/her custom Soyuz seat liner for the return home on Soyuz, as in the event of lifeboat use.
Post by: woods170 on 03/08/2015 05:47 pm
Careful there... If the best this thread has to offer is bets for beer, Chris may reconsider his decision to start this thread and he could lock it for the next 18 months.
Me being smart again. One of the rules of the bet is the thread not becoming locked, for any reason. The minute the thread is locked, the bet is off. That was on the notion that starting a thread some 20 months before the flight, and subsequently locking it a good bit of that time would be somewhat silly. I don't see Chris doing that.
Post by: Sotar on 03/09/2015 05:03 am
Post by: Roy_H on 03/09/2015 07:08 pm
Will these flights take any real cargo on them? To assist the resupply efforts, I mean.
Will the first crew demo flight assist in crew rotation ? (This question may not fit in this thread )
"Real cargo" as in experiments or critical equipment, doubtful, general supplies I would think yes. Why not when the cost of the cargo is small.
It makes good sense to me that the first flight(s) be unmanned, why risk a crew to test if you don't have to. But what doesn't make sense to me is the crewed demo. I mean what can be accomplished by the crew demo that can't be done on the unmanned version? Makes more sense to me to make the first crewed flight a fully operational crew rotation flight.
Post by: cscott on 03/09/2015 07:19 pm
But what doesn't make sense to me is the crewed demo. I mean what can be accomplished by the crew demo that can't be done on the unmanned version?
It won't do an actual crew rotation to lessen logistic impacts of a failure (since it's a test flight, after all). No pressure to launch on time, no pressure to reach the station once launched, no pressure to ensure docking is successful once station is reached. Can wave off the demo at any point without impact to station logistics.
But it *will* demonstrate human ops and assess HCI issues.
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 03/09/2015 07:20 pm
It makes good sense to me that the first flight(s) be unmanned, why risk a crew to test if you don't have to. But what doesn't make sense to me is the crewed demo. I mean what can be accomplished by the crew demo that can't be done on the unmanned version? Makes more sense to me to make the first crewed flight a fully operational crew rotation flight.
25% of the time when things go wrong when it comes to complex machinery, it's the fault of the machine. Once you've got that down pat, you need to suss out the remaining 75% fail likelihood - the nut(ter) that holds the wheel/stick/sits in the chair and waits for the machine to do all the difficult work. A machine can tell you that everything's working as it should, but it can't tell you if a seat is lumbar-crushingly inadequate or if a certain critical button is just out of reach when the rest of the space is packed with moving astronauts. How humans react to the spacecraft is just as important as knowing how the spacecraft works; best to go in increments.
Post by: Harold KSC on 07/09/2015 03:53 pm
NASA Selects Astronauts for First U.S. Commercial Space Flights
July has always been a big month for America’s space program. Next week, on July 14, New Horizons will make the closest approach ever to Pluto, and the United States will become the first nation to visit this dwarf planet in the outer reaches of our solar system. It was on July 20, 1969 that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made their giant leap for humankind. It was on July 30, 1971 that the lunar rover was driven on the surface of the Moon for the very first time. It was on July 4, 1997 that Pathfinder arrived on Mars. Furthermore, it was on July 14, 1965 – 50 years ago next week – that Mariner 4 flew by and sent us the very close-up first pictures of Mars.
Today, a half century after we received those first pictures of the Red Planet, we’re able to make a significant announcement that will further our nation’s Journey to Mars.
I am pleased to announce that four American space pioneers have been selected to be the first astronauts to train to fly to space on commercial crew carriers, all part of our ambitious plan to return space launches to U.S. soil, create good-paying American jobs and advance our goal of sending humans farther into the solar system than ever before. These distinguished, veteran astronauts are blazing a new trail, a trail that will one day land them in the history books and Americans on the surface of Mars. (Click on each astronaut’s name to learn more about him or her!):
· Robert Behnken
· Sunita Williams
· Eric Boe
· Douglas Hurley
For as long as I’ve been Administrator, President Obama has made it very clear that returning the launches of American astronauts to American soil is a top priority – and he has persistently supported this initiative in his budget requests to Congress. Had we received everything he asked for, we’d be preparing to send these astronauts to space on commercial carriers as soon as this year. As it stands, we’re currently working toward launching in 2017, and today’s announcement allows our astronauts to begin training for these flights starting now.
We are on a Journey to Mars, and in order to meet our goals for sending American astronauts to the Red Planet in the 2030s we need to be able to focus both on deep space and the groundbreaking work being done on the International Space Station (ISS).
Our commercial crew initiative makes these parallel endeavors possible. By working with American companies to get our astronauts to the ISS, NASA is able to focus on game-changing technologies, the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that are geared toward getting astronauts to deep space.
Furthermore, there are real economic benefits to bolstering America’s emerging commercial space market. We have over 350 American companies working across 36 states on our commercial crew initiative. Every dollar we invest on commercial crew is a dollar we invest in ourselves, rather than in the Russian economy.
Our plans to return launches to American soil also make fiscal sense. It currently costs $76 million per astronaut to fly on a Russian spacecraft. On an American-owned spacecraft, the average cost will be $58 million per astronaut. What’s more, each mission will carry four crewmembers instead of three, along with 100 kg of materials to support the important science and research we conduct on the ISS.
For these reasons, our commercial crew program is a worthy successor to the incredible 30-year run of the Space Shuttle Program. The decision that President Bush made in 2004 to retire the Space Shuttle was not an easy decision, but it was the right decision. As you’ll recall, it was the recommendation of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, and endorsed by many people in the space community – including yours truly.
I cannot think of a better way to continue our celebration of independence this July than to mark this milestone as we look to reassert our space travel independence and end our sole reliance on Russia to get American astronauts to the International Space Station.
***
I also want to take this opportunity to offer a special word of congratulations to astronaut candidates from the Class of 2013, who are transitioning into flight-ready status. These eight outstanding Americans – four of them women, four of them men -- were selected from a pool of more than 6,300 applicants – our second largest pool of applicants, ever.
The enthusiasm for NASA’s astronaut program reminds us that journeying to space continues to be the dream of Americans everywhere. So my message to members of our incredible NASA Family, is that you must never lose sight of the fact that by your work every day, you inspire today’s students to become tomorrow’s leaders, scientists, engineers and astronauts.
You can click on each astronaut’s name to learn more about our newest astronauts:
· Josh Cassada
· Victor Glover
· Tyler "Nick" Hague
· Christina Hammock
· Nicole Mann
· Anne McClain
· Jessica Meir
· Andrew Morgan
Post by: Joffan on 07/10/2015 11:39 pm
NASA Selects Astronauts for First U.S. Commercial Space Flights (https://blogs.nasa.gov/bolden/2015/07/09/nasa-selects-astronauts-for-first-u-s-commercial-space-flights/)
Post by: Hg on 03/17/2016 05:51 pm
I believe I've heard that the IDA3 is penciled in for launch on SpaceX flight CRS-12, and that the best guess for CRS-12 is 'late 2017'. After that, IDA3 has to be manually mounted to its PMA by EVAing astronauts. Probably a new set of astronauts will need to be trained in this EVA before then. If all this is true, doesn't it suggest that this mission is more likely to launch around December 2017, and the rest of the Commercial Crew Program will follow in 2018?
I hope NASA will allow SpaceX and Boeing to start flights while only IDA2 is operational.
Post by: mn on 03/17/2016 10:33 pm
I wonder if NASA will insist that IDA3 has arrived at the ISS and properly installed, so that any visiting commercial vehicle has a backup docking port for attachment, before this SpX-DM1 flight is allowed to launch. As this flight (or Boeing's first uncrewed test flight) will be the first usage of the new docking standard in space, they may be wary.
I believe I've heard that the IDA3 is penciled in for launch on SpaceX flight CRS-12, and that the best guess for CRS-12 is 'late 2017'. After that, IDA3 has to be manually mounted to its PMA by EVAing astronauts. Probably a new set of astronauts will need to be trained in this EVA before then. If all this is true, doesn't it suggest that this mission is more likely to launch around December 2017, and the rest of the Commercial Crew Program will follow in 2018?
I hope NASA will allow SpaceX and Boeing to start flights while only IDA2 is operational.
I would suppose that if there is a problem with the docking they could return to earth, I can't imagine they would launch a vehicle that can't return safely if there is a docking problem.
Post by: Comga on 03/18/2016 02:21 am
I wonder if NASA will insist that IDA3 has arrived at the ISS and properly installed, so that any visiting commercial vehicle has a backup docking port for attachment, before this SpX-DM1 flight is allowed to launch. As this flight (or Boeing's first uncrewed test flight) will be the first usage of the new docking standard in space, they may be wary.
I believe I've heard that the IDA3 is penciled in for launch on SpaceX flight CRS-12, and that the best guess for CRS-12 is 'late 2017'. After that, IDA3 has to be manually mounted to its PMA by EVAing astronauts. Probably a new set of astronauts will need to be trained in this EVA before then. If all this is true, doesn't it suggest that this mission is more likely to launch around December 2017, and the rest of the Commercial Crew Program will follow in 2018?
I hope NASA will allow SpaceX and Boeing to start flights while only IDA2 is operational.
Over in the L2 External Payloads threads (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29090.msg1498763#msg1498763)we see that SpX-12 has only Space Debris Sensor (SDS) -DRAGONS scheduled for the trunk. This has an active area of 1 sq meter, so it's probably one FRAM. SpX-13 has two external payloads, so it could probably accommodate SDS if it were to be bumped by IDA-3.
We also see that SpX-11 is anticipated to be in late winter of 2017, so SpX-12 might fly around the middle of 2017, which would be before Commercial Crew. However, I have no idea if IDA-3 can be ready by then.
It could also go the other way, with the external payloads from SpX-13 accelerated to SpX-12 to make room on SpX-13 for IDA-3. That would provide more time to ready IDA-3 and possibly still be in place for Commercial Crew.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/18/2016 05:30 am
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/5-Status_of_ISS.pdf
Post by: Comga on 03/18/2016 09:45 pm
IDA-3 is flying on SpX-14. See page 14 of this pdf.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/5-Status_of_ISS.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/5-Status_of_ISS.pdf)
This is all well and good, but much of the information is out of date.
The FPIP page on slide 10 is dated October 20, 2015. L2 has one from February (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39731.0), and that is already out of date.
This one has SpX-11 in August of 2016, which is probably when SpX-9 will launch.
SpX-12 is probably flying when SpX-14 was scheduled as of Nov 4, 2014, the date of this presentation. SpX-12 will probably launch mid year 2017.
If they want to "Establish 2 docking ports and 2 berthing ports on ISS USOS to support crew and cargo vehicles" as this states, they will want to move IDA-3 ahead in the delayed SpaceX CRS schedule, which can be accommodated.
Post by: AnalogMan on 03/19/2016 01:39 am
IDA-3 is flying on SpX-14. See page 14 of this pdf.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/5-Status_of_ISS.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/5-Status_of_ISS.pdf)
This is all well and good, but much of the information is out of date.
The FPIP page on slide 10 is dated October 20, 2015. L2 has one from February (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39731.0), and that is already out of date.
This one has SpX-11 in August of 2016, which is probably when SpX-9 will launch.
SpX-12 is probably flying when SpX-14 was scheduled as of Nov 4, 2014, the date of this presentation. SpX-12 will probably launch mid year 2017.
If they want to "Establish 2 docking ports and 2 berthing ports on ISS USOS to support crew and cargo vehicles" as this states, they will want to move IDA-3 ahead in the delayed SpaceX CRS schedule, which can be accommodated.
Latest info I have seen is the attached chart, which was presented 3 March 2016. However, it may not help much in deciding which SpaceX flight it launches on (other than no earlier than SpX-14).
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/10/2016 04:09 pm
Will these flights take any real cargo on them?
I would be curious to see if SpaceX could use DM-1 for one of the CRS flights, kill two birds with one stone. Anyway SpaceX can charge for both the DM-1 Milestone and a CRS flight on one mission?
Post by: the_other_Doug on 04/10/2016 04:24 pm
Will these flights take any real cargo on them?
I would be curious to see if SpaceX could use DM-1 for one of the CRS flights, kill two birds with one stone. Anyway SpaceX can charge for both the DM-1 Milestone and a CRS flight on one mission?
Dragon-2 cannot be berthed, it must dock at one of the smaller docking ports (yet to have their IDA docking adapters to be installed). This makes Dragon 2 unsuitable for pressurized cargo delivery. For example, you can't get anything rack-sized through the docking port; that requires using one of the berthing ports.
Also, a good deal of the internal volume of Dragon 2 is taken up with crew stations, control panels, etc. Again, this makes it less than ideal as a cargo craft.
It's not that Dragon 2 could never be pressed into service as a cargo craft, but it's not designed for the task, and would not do it as well as the less-expensive cargo Dragon.
That said, if DM1 docks unmanned to ISS as planned, I would expect it to contain some luxury cargo, like fresh fruit and personal items for the crew. I just don't think they'll try to pack it with all the upmass that a CRS flight would normally carry.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/10/2016 04:37 pm
Dragon-2 cannot be berthed, it must dock at one of the smaller docking ports (yet to have their IDA docking adapters to be installed). This makes Dragon 2 unsuitable for pressurized cargo delivery. For example, you can't get anything rack-sized through the docking port; that requires using one of the berthing ports.
SpaceX offered Dragon 2 as an option for CRS-2, berthing requires valuable crew time and most flights dont need the full hatch size (ie anything going on Cygnus as it doesnt use a full PCBM) Without crew you dont need seats, displays ect.
Quote
SpaceX – yet to release a statement on the CRS2 award – will utilize its Dragon spacecraft, in two configurations, during CRS2, with both the berthed Dragon spacecraft – as currently being employed during CRS1 – and the upgraded Dragon 2, which can dock directly with the ISS.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/nasa-awards-crs2-spacex-orbital-atk-sierra-nevada/
Post by: the_other_Doug on 04/10/2016 04:55 pm
Dragon-2 cannot be berthed, it must dock at one of the smaller docking ports (yet to have their IDA docking adapters to be installed). This makes Dragon 2 unsuitable for pressurized cargo delivery. For example, you can't get anything rack-sized through the docking port; that requires using one of the berthing ports.
SpaceX offered Dragon 2 as an option for CRS-2, berthing requires valuable crew time and most flights dont need the full hatch size (ie anything going on Cygnus as it doesnt use a full PCBM) Without crew you dont need seats, displays ect.QuoteSpaceX – yet to release a statement on the CRS2 award – will utilize its Dragon spacecraft, in two configurations, during CRS2, with both the berthed Dragon spacecraft – as currently being employed during CRS1 – and the upgraded Dragon 2, which can dock directly with the ISS.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/nasa-awards-crs2-spacex-orbital-atk-sierra-nevada/
Oh, sure. But that's for CRS-2, and the original question was whether or not SPX-DM1 could double as a full CRS flight under the current CRS contract. The CRS-2 cargo flights that might use a Dragon 2 would likely be sized in terms of upmass for the particular amount that a Dragon 2 would normally be able to carry -- which I believe would be less than that for a cargo Dragon. I mean, a Dragon 2 carries the super Dracos and their fuel, the ECLSS, and (unless they are unshipped) the crew couches and control panels. The mass of the extra Dragon 2 systems that the cargo Dragon doesn't carry isn't insignificant, and would need to come out of the cargo upmass. The internal volume is a bit less in the Dragon 2, as well, IIRC.
And I can't see SpaceX modifying the first Dragon 2 to fly to the extent of removing items such as the crew couches, etc., that they will ultimately fly crew with. It's called test-as-you-fly, fly-as-you-test. An uncrewed cargo version of Dragon 2 will surely come as a set of modifications that will occur after Dragon 2 is fully qualified for crewed flight --which, after all, is what DM1 is all about, right?
I can, though, see a very attractive scenario in which SpaceX uses cargo Dragon 2 uncrewed to deliver upmass, on a flight without any critical downmass requirements, and then test propulsive landing from orbit with such a craft. They have to test it uncrewed at some point before they try it with a crew on board anyway; this would seem the perfect type of mission profile with which to test it.
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/10/2016 05:02 pm
False. Progress also only docks, and is certainly suitable for pressurized cargo delivery. Cygnus's door is actually much, much smaller than the full CBM, but that doesn't seem to be a show-stopper, either.Will these flights take any real cargo on them?
I would be curious to see if SpaceX could use DM-1 for one of the CRS flights, kill two birds with one stone. Anyway SpaceX can charge for both the DM-1 Milestone and a CRS flight on one mission?
Dragon-2 cannot be berthed, it must dock at one of the smaller docking ports (yet to have their IDA docking adapters to be installed). This makes Dragon 2 unsuitable for pressurized cargo delivery....
Yes, there is some cargo that you'd want the larger port for, but it is completely false to say it's unsuited for pressurized cargo delivery. I seem to recall that some some of the later CRS 2 missions for SpaceX may even dock, not berth.
Post by: CameronD on 05/13/2016 03:40 am
Amongst all of the recent Dragon 1 launches and mission successes, are they still on schedule??
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/13/2016 03:44 am
With the Boeing crew launch now pushed out to 2018 according to Chris's article, does anyone know what's happening in the SpaceX camp?Yes. Doesn't mean they won't slip later, but current word is they're still on schedule.
Amongst all of the recent Dragon 1 launches and mission successes, are they still on schedule??
Post by: woods170 on 05/13/2016 06:19 am
SpaceX is not quite on schedule. They are still on track for a first unmanned launch of Dragon 2 in 2017, but that was originally scheduled for late THIS year. So that already slipped. The following in-flight abort subsequently slipped as well (as it uses the spacecraft from the unmanned flight). And the first manned flight slipped at least 8 months to the end of 2017. It's all in the most recent FPIP.With the Boeing crew launch now pushed out to 2018 according to Chris's article, does anyone know what's happening in the SpaceX camp?Yes. Doesn't mean they won't slip later, but current word is they're still on schedule.
Amongst all of the recent Dragon 1 launches and mission successes, are they still on schedule??
So yeah, for the moment SpaceX is still targeting a first manned flight in 2017, whereas Boeing has already slipped into 2018.
But, the first manned mission of Dragon 2 is now scheduled near the very end of 2017 and it is almost a given, IMO, that it will slip into 2018 as well.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/13/2016 08:52 am
But, the first manned mission of Dragon 2 is now scheduled near the very end of 2017 and it is almost a given, IMO, that it will slip into 2018 as well.
You may well be correct. In part it'll depend on whether SpaceX built much contigency in when they announced the slip to late 2017. Given their past (poor) record on milestone dates and the size of the slip I'm really hoping they've learnt from experience and given themselves a more realistic schedule to allow for further unforeseen issues.
I suspect the now declared Boeing delays will also provide even more motivation to keep to the current schedule.
Post by: eweilow on 05/16/2016 06:24 am
One should also factor in the fact that they intend to launch a Red Dragon to Mars in the first half of 2018 as well which really does require having a working vehicle at that point so there's more at stake for SpaceX than just the manned missionsBut, the first manned mission of Dragon 2 is now scheduled near the very end of 2017 and it is almost a given, IMO, that it will slip into 2018 as well.
You may well be correct. In part it'll depend on whether SpaceX built much contigency in when they announced the slip to late 2017. Given their past (poor) record on milestone dates and the size of the slip I'm really hoping they've learnt from experience and given themselves a more realistic schedule to allow for further unforeseen issues.
I suspect the now declared Boeing delays will also provide even more motivation to keep to the current schedule.
Post by: Jet Black on 05/16/2016 10:55 am
SpaceX is not quite on schedule. They are still on track for a first unmanned launch of Dragon 2 in 2017, but that was originally scheduled for late THIS year. So that already slipped. The following in-flight abort subsequently slipped as well (as it uses the spacecraft from the unmanned flight). And the first manned flight slipped at least 8 months to the end of 2017. It's all in the most recent FPIP.
The question is the reason for that slip. I heard that some of the slip at least is down to NASA delaying the milestones and not allowing SpaceX do do the work ahead of time.
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/16/2016 02:39 pm
One should also factor in the fact that they intend to launch a Red Dragon to Mars in the first half of 2018 as well which really does require having a working vehicle at that point so there's more at stake for SpaceX than just the manned missionsBut, the first manned mission of Dragon 2 is now scheduled near the very end of 2017 and it is almost a given, IMO, that it will slip into 2018 as well.
You may well be correct. In part it'll depend on whether SpaceX built much contigency in when they announced the slip to late 2017. Given their past (poor) record on milestone dates and the size of the slip I'm really hoping they've learnt from experience and given themselves a more realistic schedule to allow for further unforeseen issues.
I suspect the now declared Boeing delays will also provide even more motivation to keep to the current schedule.
Does not require validation of life support, onboard controls, or the flight suits. That should help.
Post by: NX-0 on 05/11/2017 05:24 pm
"Oh but Chris this is so far away!" Heh - it's just going to be THAT historic I want to start a thread for it nowAlthough the dates have changed, we are much closer now than when this thread was originally started. While there is still a lot on the manifest between now and when this launches, I thought I'd ask if there were any updates for this, including hardware and whether or not this will fly on a flight-proven booster.
<snip>
Keep the thread specific to this mission. We have Dragon 2, CCtCAP threads and such in the general sections.
Post by: deruch on 05/11/2017 08:34 pm
whether or not this will fly on a flight-proven booster.Assuming that SpaceX sticks to the current schedule, it won't be using a flight-proven booster (and probably not even if they slip). In the CRS-10 preflight briefing, NASA's Deputy Manager ISS Program, Dan Hartman, addressed NASA's future plans for flying on reused boosters:
Quote from: Dan Hartman
As far as the booster, we've just started those discussions. We've got some teams off generating how we'll even go about requesting information from SpaceX. Laying out our plan. I imagine we'll have some sort of preliminary review on that in the April/May time period. I think planning-wise, it may not happen this year. But shortly thereafter.
I am assuming that when NASA approves using preflown boosters, it will happen first on cargo flights before eventually being accepted for manned missions. So, even if DM-1 slips into next year when "it may happen", I don't think they would consider it yet for crew missions. And, even though this mission is an unmanned one, the whole point is that they are doing everything just like they will for DM-2 and eventual operational missions.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/11/2017 10:28 pm
If they have used boosters to fly they can find commercial customers.
Post by: AncientU on 05/11/2017 11:10 pm
This was likely priced with a new booster. No reason for them to reuse on this flight. They'll make money on it regardless.
If they have used boosters to fly they can find commercial customers.
Orbital has switched twice in the course of COTS, and SpaceX has changed block numbers. May take some gatting used to, but this is no different.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/20/2017 03:37 pm
Post by: woods170 on 05/20/2017 04:33 pm
A Long term L2 schedule this week has DM-1 as March 9, 2018. Obviously very fluid with it being so far away.Quite. Particularly given that this was not some minor 1-month slip, but a major 4-month one.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:02 pm
Kathy Leuders here with us.
It's a media Q&A
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:04 pm
SpaceX as Demo 1 & 2 vehicles. Hardware for PCM (Post Cert Missions) being built up.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:04 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:05 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:06 pm
Kathy: Contracts state end of 2017 for uncrewed for SpaceX and late-2nd quarter '18 for crewed. Lots of work left on this. Will work over next few months to finalize schedule.
For Boeing, May for uncrewed and August for crew.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:07 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:08 pm
A: Yes.
Follow-up: Will there be cargo on those?
A: We'll be working through some level of cargo on both vehicles. We won't be flying out most expensive cargo, but checking out cargo capabilities on these un-crewed test flights is a good idea.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:09 pm
A: CCP owes the agency the best schedules and data about risk to schedules to make best decision.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:12 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:13 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:14 pm
A: Already worked through V&V plan for cert for transport and abort systems. Right now, working through final model results that come through in testing to close the requirements.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:16 pm
A: What you don't know you don't know yet.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/31/2017 01:21 pm
Q from Marcia Dunn: Timelines for uncrewed and crewed?
Kathy: Contracts state end of 2017 for uncrewed for SpaceX and late-2nd quarter '18 for crewed. Lots of work left on this. Will work over next few months to finalize scheduled.
For Boeing, May for uncrewed and August for crew.
So the issue with saying out loud to the media about DM-1 being 2018, per the planning documentation, is the contract language, but she answered it the right way to cover the bases. Also explains the way Jon Cowart recently answered it in an interview.
Worth adding the Eric Berger comment for more context:
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/869891198869098496
They've already acknowledged the slip to 2018. But you can rest assured their dates today will be too optimistic.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:24 pm
A: History... after STS-107, what was LOC number for Shuttle. It was 1/100. At same time, ppl were pulling together the CCP numbers. NASA wanted to get to 10x better than Shuttle. We've learned a lot over the last 10 years working with the requirement. Lots learned with Orion, where they learned that 1/1,000 was not credible. We learned the doing probabilistic assessment required understanding and giving value to LOC elements. And that's very very difficult. AT beginning of CCP, there were questions about what was needed and how to make trades.
We chose to use the LOC number as one part of a suite of tools for all sorts of safety requirements... with safety review process compared to performance requirements like oxygen % in cabin and ability to get crew out of capsule in 90 secs.
So as we've working, we've been working to get all of that and the rankings for the contributors to LOC as a way to focus on highest risk items to program. But what's become obvious is that the data sets to run assessments on that we simply don't have. The certainty bars were high, but as we dug down, we realized that aiming for a number wasn't enough, we had to understand what those numbers were telling us.
NOW, we starting to understand that that LOC gap given as requirement is going to VERY HARD to meet. Don't know where we'll end up. But from agency standpoint, where there are differences in the numbers, we're learning and are happy.
Number might not match, but process and numbers and safety processes are exactly where I want them to be.
I'm very happy that we want through the whole list and as a joint team said "There's nothing we would change in the vehicle designs to change where the LOC number is right now."
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/31/2017 01:26 pm
Some background context on LOC, etc:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/commercial-crew-tight-achievable-timeline-2018/
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:28 pm
A: CCP contracts DID NOT mandate uncrewed test flights. That's something that Spx and Boeing wanted to do on top of the CCP contract requirements.
High alt abort tests. Each provider developed their own schedule. Spx's contracted abort was the pad abort a few years ago. Their in-flight abort test is not required by the contract but something they wanted to do as part of the SAA w/ NASA. What the abort tests will do is validate that the assessments work.
Boeing is different. They will do full-up pad abort test NET 1st Q of 2018.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/31/2017 01:31 pm
A: Not ready yet. Gerst has trained me well. "No decision before it's time." Healthy competition going on here. Depends on who's ready and when. We get through an uncrewed demo, and if there's a problem, things have to change. We're simultaneously preparing for the worst AND the best. We don't want to hold back a provided that's ready to go.
Dean: How does spacing of flight works?
A: For operational, once we see where they are, we'll figure it out. Ideally, we'd like six-month rotations. Big struggle right now is making sure we're ready with both, and then figuring out the rotation dance of the manifest.
Post by: Hg on 10/26/2017 02:50 pm
I wonder if NASA will insist that IDA3 has arrived at the ISS and properly installed, so that any visiting commercial vehicle has a backup docking port for attachment, before this SpX-DM1 flight is allowed to launch. As this flight (or Boeing's first uncrewed test flight) will be the first usage of the new docking standard in space, they may be wary.
I believe I've heard that the IDA3 is penciled in for launch on SpaceX flight CRS-12, and that the best guess for CRS-12 is 'late 2017'. After that, IDA3 has to be manually mounted to its PMA by EVAing astronauts. Probably a new set of astronauts will need to be trained in this EVA before then. If all this is true, doesn't it suggest that this mission is more likely to launch around December 2017, and the rest of the Commercial Crew Program will follow in 2018?
I hope NASA will allow SpaceX and Boeing to start flights while only IDA2 is operational.
Now that 18 months have passed since we first discussed the issue above in this thread, perhaps it's time to update the question. According to the information available publicly (Kirk Shireman, ISS program manager in August 2016, Gunther's Space Page, etc) the IDA3 is manifested to fly on CRS-16 in August 2018. This DM1 mission is now scheduled around April 2018. Clearly the redundancy of an attached IDA3 would be desirable from NASA's standpoint for manned missions and the original plan was for both IDAs to be present for docking (not berthing) missions. To my knowledge, NASA has not declared its willingness to allow docking prior to IDA3's presence. Will they allow DM1 to proceed? Perhaps they are counting on further slips to DM1. There is also some talk made public of moving IDA3's deployment up to February's CRS-14 launch, if it becomes available in time.
Post by: mn on 10/26/2017 05:36 pm
... To my knowledge, NASA has not declared its willingness to allow docking prior to IDA3's presence. ...
Has NASA declared an unwillingness to launch without a backup port? or is this just conjecture?
Do crewed launches always have a backup docking port?
Post by: biosehnsucht on 10/27/2017 05:51 am
Post by: woods170 on 10/27/2017 06:35 am
During the space shuttle period USOS didn't have an active backup docking port for the shuttle. In case the primary docking port failed it would have required swapping out an entire PMA to have the backup docking port available for the space shuttle.... To my knowledge, NASA has not declared its willingness to allow docking prior to IDA3's presence. ...
Has NASA declared an unwillingness to launch without a backup port? or is this just conjecture?
Do crewed launches always have a backup docking port?
Post by: rpapo on 10/27/2017 10:46 am
During the space shuttle period USOS didn't have an active backup docking port for the shuttle. In case the primary docking port failed it would have required swapping out an entire PMA to have the backup docking port available for the space shuttle.Yes, but you know full well that the rules NASA wrote for itself during the Shuttle years no longer apply now that somebody else is making the transport. For a variety of reasons.
Post by: Hg on 10/28/2017 03:08 am
Post by: mn on 10/29/2017 05:45 pm
NASA's preferences for redundancy are well documented. That their original program design and management plan intended to have the 2 IDA installed before manned flights occurred is a fact. That it is important to them is an assumption on my part. It could be that NASA only cares because they want to park two visiting vehicles simultaneously eventually.
Found this to essentially document what you said:
https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/13/12172822/nasa-docking-adapter-spacex-boeing-commercial-crew
Quote
station managers are trying to ensure that two adapters will be installed and ready before Commercial Crew flights begin
...
It’s not required to have both IDAs on orbit prior to the launch of the first Commercial Crew test flight," Shireman told The Verge during a press conference. "But we are actively monitoring the schedules of the Commercial Crew vehicles. We’re planning to launch on SpaceX 16, or a little earlier if we have to.
So it seems NASA wants (wanted) both in place before launch but it's not required.
And if I remember correctly, (though I can't find the source right now), NASA wanted two adapters so they can have overlapping crew exchanges (launch a new crew before the previous crew leaves), that means there would not be a backup docking port available.
So it seems they only wanted two available ports initially before they establish experience/confidence in the new IDA ports, not as a long term need.
Post by: gongora on 11/06/2017 07:52 pm
NASA's preferences for redundancy are well documented. That their original program design and management plan intended to have the 2 IDA installed before manned flights occurred is a fact. That it is important to them is an assumption on my part. It could be that NASA only cares because they want to park two visiting vehicles simultaneously eventually.
Found this in a NASA OIG document released today:
Quote
The most significant item lost during the SPX-7 mishap was a Docking Adapter necessary to support
upcoming commercial crew missions. Although NASA had planned to have two adapters installed on the
Station before the first “crewed” commercial crew demonstration mission scheduled for June 2018, it is
now likely there will be only one installed in time for this mission. Having only one adapter means that a
commercial crew vehicle will not be able to dock with the ISS if technical issues arise with the single
available docking port. ISS Program officials told us they plan to have the second adapter installed
before regular commercial crew rotations begin in late 2018.
That sounds like the second adapter should still be flown up around CRS-16.
(Those dates for the test mission and first crew rotation obviously aren't going to happen.)
Post by: vaporcobra on 11/06/2017 08:46 pm
NASA's preferences for redundancy are well documented. That their original program design and management plan intended to have the 2 IDA installed before manned flights occurred is a fact. That it is important to them is an assumption on my part. It could be that NASA only cares because they want to park two visiting vehicles simultaneously eventually.
Found this in a NASA OIG document released today:QuoteThe most significant item lost during the SPX-7 mishap was a Docking Adapter necessary to support
upcoming commercial crew missions. Although NASA had planned to have two adapters installed on the
Station before the first “crewed” commercial crew demonstration mission scheduled for June 2018, it is
now likely there will be only one installed in time for this mission. Having only one adapter means that a
commercial crew vehicle will not be able to dock with the ISS if technical issues arise with the single
available docking port. ISS Program officials told us they plan to have the second adapter installed
before regular commercial crew rotations begin in late 2018.
That sounds like the second adapter should still be flown up around CRS-16.
(Those dates for the test mission and first crew rotation obviously aren't going to happen.)
Nice catch. I wonder if NASA is willing to conduct DM-1 with just one adapter. It seems that the need for docking redundancy is more related to financial risk than crew risk, given that mission abort is inherently always a possibility and any Demo mission is unlikely to include anything mission-critical for the ISS and crew.
Post by: deruch on 11/07/2017 01:27 am
From the quote, NASA sounds willing to conduct DM-2 (the one with crew) with just one adapter, so they obviously would be okay with it for just DM-1. To me, the more interesting question is what happens in the event of docking failure on DM-1 due to a problem with the only IDA? Would there be a requirement to fly a second DM-1 mission (DM-1B) that achieves successful docking prior to a crewed test mission? I assume so because much of the DM-1 testing is related to performance while docked to station. Hopefully, there won't be any issues for either company.NASA's preferences for redundancy are well documented. That their original program design and management plan intended to have the 2 IDA installed before manned flights occurred is a fact. That it is important to them is an assumption on my part. It could be that NASA only cares because they want to park two visiting vehicles simultaneously eventually.
Found this in a NASA OIG document released today:QuoteThe most significant item lost during the SPX-7 mishap was a Docking Adapter necessary to support
upcoming commercial crew missions. Although NASA had planned to have two adapters installed on the
Station before the first “crewed” commercial crew demonstration mission scheduled for June 2018, it is
now likely there will be only one installed in time for this mission. Having only one adapter means that a
commercial crew vehicle will not be able to dock with the ISS if technical issues arise with the single
available docking port. ISS Program officials told us they plan to have the second adapter installed
before regular commercial crew rotations begin in late 2018.
That sounds like the second adapter should still be flown up around CRS-16.
(Those dates for the test mission and first crew rotation obviously aren't going to happen.)
Nice catch. I wonder if NASA is willing to conduct DM-1 with just one adapter. It seems that the need for docking redundancy is more related to financial risk than crew risk, given that mission abort is inherently always a possibility and any Demo mission is unlikely to include anything mission-critical for the ISS and crew.
Post by: Norm38 on 11/07/2017 02:25 pm
I assume so because much of the DM-1 testing is related to performance while docked to station.
Performance while docked? Can you elaborate? While docked isn't the D2 mostly passive?
Post by: guckyfan on 11/07/2017 02:59 pm
I assume so because much of the DM-1 testing is related to performance while docked to station.
Performance while docked? Can you elaborate? While docked isn't the D2 mostly passive?
I seem to remember that initially docking of DM-1 was not even the plan. It was added later. Do I remember wrong?
Post by: envy887 on 11/07/2017 04:07 pm
I assume so because much of the DM-1 testing is related to performance while docked to station.
Performance while docked? Can you elaborate? While docked isn't the D2 mostly passive?
Have to make sure it can properly not do anything.
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/07/2017 04:22 pm
I assume so because much of the DM-1 testing is related to performance while docked to station.
Performance while docked? Can you elaborate? While docked isn't the D2 mostly passive?
Have to make sure it can properly not do anything.
No, I recall, that, too -- the DM-1 flight originally was to demonstrate rendezvous and stationkeeping within 100 meters of ISS, and then demonstrate successful entry and landing. It wasn't supposed to attempt an unmanned docking.
AFAIK, there haven't been any demonstrations of unmanned U.S. docking maneuvers, have there? I know the Russian system has been successfully used for years, by both Russian and European vehicles, and the Chinese are using s imilar system. But all American dockings have either been crew-managed, or not really dockings, but SSRM-handled berthings, right?
So, will DM-1 be America's first completely automated docking of an unmanned vehicle to any other vehicle?
Post by: nacnud on 11/07/2017 07:09 pm
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/08/2017 05:59 pm
Well Orbital Express (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Express) did some automated dockings.
Thanks for that. I guess more recent updates have failed to "save" to my long-term memory. My best recollection was of a DoD test back in the '80s, where spacecraft launched separately were supposed to perform automated rendezvous and docking tests, during which one or both of the spacecraft ran out of fuel before they achieved a successful docking.
Good to see DARPA figured it out... :)
Still, this automated docking is not something that's been done a whole lot by American spacecraft, and certainly not something done by the U.S. in support of ISS operations up to now. So, still rather impressive...
Post by: Comga on 11/08/2017 07:27 pm
Well Orbital Express (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Express) did some automated dockings.
Thanks for that. I guess more recent updates have failed to "save" to my long-term memory. My best recollection was of a DoD test back in the '80s, where spacecraft launched separately were supposed to perform automated rendezvous and docking tests, during which one or both of the spacecraft ran out of fuel before they achieved a successful docking.
Good to see DARPA figured it out... :)
Still, this automated docking is not something that's been done a whole lot by American spacecraft, and certainly not something done by the U.S. in support of ISS operations up to now. So, still rather impressive...
DARPA didn't figure out anything except funding. ;)
Boeing and Ball Aerospace built Orbital Express. As it should be.
Technology is almost here to do autonomous driving of cars and trucks with all the human and environmental variability involved in crowded conditions. Compared to this, autonomous orbital rendezvous is simple.
Post by: cwr on 11/08/2017 07:28 pm
I assume so because much of the DM-1 testing is related to performance while docked to station.
Performance while docked? Can you elaborate? While docked isn't the D2 mostly passive?
Have to make sure it can properly not do anything.
No, I recall, that, too -- the DM-1 flight originally was to demonstrate rendezvous and stationkeeping within 100 meters of ISS, and then demonstrate successful entry and landing. It wasn't supposed to attempt an unmanned docking.
AFAIK, there haven't been any demonstrations of unmanned U.S. docking maneuvers, have there? I know the Russian system has been successfully used for years, by both Russian and European vehicles, and the Chinese are using s imilar system. But all American dockings have either been crew-managed, or not really dockings, but SSRM-handled berthings, right?
So, will DM-1 be America's first completely automated docking of an unmanned vehicle to any other vehicle?
It seems to me that you are describing the original Dragon 1 demonstration plan which involved 3 flights.
The 1st Dragon 1 COTS demo was launched on 2010/12/08 and just demonstrated orbital operations,
re-entry and recovery.
At that time, 2 more COTS Demos were planned fro Dragon 1.
However after Orbital announced their 1st Demo would berth, SpaceX asked to merge their 2nd and 3rd Demos into one flight [I'm guessing that the orbital plan triggered SpaceX to change, it could just as easily have been schedule crunch or cost]. That merged demo was executed via launch on 2012/05/21.
I could be wrong but I've only heard of 2 orbital demo launches [demo1 unmanned docking and demo2 manned docking] for commercial crew with both SpaceX and Boeing submitting similar plans.
Nor do I recollect an FPIP that showed anything different.
Carl
Post by: biosehnsucht on 11/09/2017 06:50 am
Well Orbital Express (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Express) did some automated dockings.
Reading the wiki page, sounds like it used a robotic arm to manage the dockings, not doing it how Dragon will (and the Russian and Chinese systems have)?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/07/2018 09:44 pm
Quote
Brooks asks if its correct SpaceX got waiver to not fly functioning life support system on first, uncrewed Crew Dragon launch.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/971409824780079104
Lightfoot: don’t know, but we will have safety policies in place when we do fly crew.
Quote
SpaceX says it has not applied for a waiver, plans to fly life support on Demo 1.https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/971506957277376512
Post by: AncientU on 03/07/2018 11:02 pm
QuoteBrooks asks if its correct SpaceX got waiver to not fly functioning life support system on first, uncrewed Crew Dragon launch.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/971409824780079104
Lightfoot: don’t know, but we will have safety policies in place when we do fly crew.QuoteSpaceX says it has not applied for a waiver, plans to fly life support on Demo 1.https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/971506957277376512
That was EM-1 that got the waiver...
Wait, they don't need a 'waiver' -- they're making up the rules.
Post by: The Phantom on 03/09/2018 10:08 pm
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/09/2018 10:35 pm
Post by: vaporcobra on 03/09/2018 10:50 pm
I spend just about zero time in the SX public forums, so maybe you’re already aware of this. I saw this object on the back of one of the GO boats in Port Canaveral today. Practice for Dragon recovery?
As Kansan52 mentions, very likely yes. Go Searcher has been out and about with that specific article for a couple weeks at this point.
Regardless, thank you for sharing! We more or less unilaterally appreciate any new photos of SpaceX hardware we can get.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/09/2018 11:16 pm
I spend just about zero time in the SX public forums, so maybe you’re already aware of this. I saw this object on the back of one of the GO boats in Port Canaveral today. Practice for Dragon recovery?
Probably that one:
(https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/wp-content/uploads/sites/230/2017/07/RecoveryTrainer.jpg)
Source NASA (https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2017/07/20/recovery-and-rescue-teams-practice-with-full-size-crew-dragon-trainer/)
Post by: jimvela on 03/09/2018 11:24 pm
We (humorously) speculated about the uses of the little black room to the right...
Post by: vaporcobra on 03/09/2018 11:41 pm
I spend just about zero time in the SX public forums, so maybe you’re already aware of this. I saw this object on the back of one of the GO boats in Port Canaveral today. Practice for Dragon recovery?
Probably that one:
(https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/wp-content/uploads/sites/230/2017/07/RecoveryTrainer.jpg)
Source NASA (https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2017/07/20/recovery-and-rescue-teams-practice-with-full-size-crew-dragon-trainer/)
Had the same thought, but the article on Go Searcher appears to more identically match the shape of a real Crew Dragon - note the SuperDraco alcoves actually protrude visibly, whereas the article used for crew recovery testing appears to be a smooth, generic capsule. I think it's more likely a boilerplate mass and drag simulator or even the mockup capsule SpaceX often shows off at certain events, though I doubt that version is an accurate mass representation.
Post by: Jakusb on 03/26/2018 10:47 pm
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/978335789309407232 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/978335789309407232)
Post by: woods170 on 03/27/2018 08:57 am
Core 1051 reserved for this mission:
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/978335789309407232 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/978335789309407232)
Reserved, as well as being under construction.
Post by: rpapo on 03/27/2018 10:16 am
Post by: woods170 on 03/27/2018 10:22 am
But, given how SpaceX does things, why in the world are the words "Vertical Integration" used here? As far as I know, Falcon 9 stages, first and second, are built horizontally...Typo by whoever made the presentation slides probably.
Post by: niwax on 03/27/2018 10:26 am
But, given how SpaceX does things, why in the world are the words "Vertical Integration" used here? As far as I know, Falcon 9 stages, first and second, are built horizontally...
Vertical integration as in built entirely in-house?
Post by: Jakusb on 03/27/2018 11:29 am
And here is a picture.Not exactly a "spotting", but Commercial Crew update shows B1051 being used for DM-1 mission, tanks are in vertical integration stage (getting COPVs installed).
That is an odd comment. As far as I was aware there is no vertical integration stage; everything is done horizontal.
I don't know that much about the manufacturing process, but when we get views of the Falcon production line there are always tanks off to the side in a vertical orientation (before the RP-1 and LOX tanks are joined).
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42977.0;attach=1483142;sess=42302)
Post by: fvasnier on 03/27/2018 01:09 pm
I was wondering if we can except anything PR/fun oriented for this mission to the ISS? Something like a new starman ::)
Or maybe there will be some useful cargo?
And also, what kind of footage can we expect to see? (both DM1 & DM2)
As the Dragon 2 looks very futuristic, I hope they will live stream the interior during the launch : a good way to make space great again ;D
Post by: gongora on 03/27/2018 01:26 pm
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/27/2018 02:05 pm
There will probably be a little bit of cargo on the uncrewed demo flights.
For ballast right?
It only makes sense to make the most of the up and down mass.
Post by: DistantTemple on 03/27/2018 02:14 pm
Post by: Jcc on 03/27/2018 02:37 pm
Probably quite sober... wouldn't want to add things that would slow down NASA's processes... However I thought I heard there would be a test dummy, but can't search now, but a test dummy would make perfect sense.
A test dummy would be fun, but not NASA's style. It will certainly be instrumented, like the Orion test flight.
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/27/2018 03:03 pm
Post by: Inoeth on 03/27/2018 07:40 pm
While NASA will want some more normal things to bring aboard the Dragon on this mission, I bet SpaceX will be allowed to put something small and fun on board given that i'm sure there is plenty of margin for the mission... NASA did approve the big wheel of cheese for the first cargo Dragon after all...
Post by: vaporcobra on 03/27/2018 08:19 pm
http://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-commercial-crew-contingency-plans/
Post by: rpapo on 03/27/2018 09:13 pm
NASA did approve the big wheel of cheese for the first cargo Dragon after all...Whoever said NASA was consulted in the matter? After all, that test didn't go anywhere near the ISS.
Post by: ValmirGP on 03/27/2018 09:39 pm
While NASA will want some more normal things to bring aboard the Dragon on this mission, I bet SpaceX will be allowed to put something small and fun on board given that i'm sure there is plenty of margin for the mission... NASA did approve the big wheel of cheese for the first cargo Dragon after all...
I guess some rodents are in order this time as a proof of the living conditions on board.
At least they will certainly have enough cheese.
Post by: fvasnier on 03/27/2018 09:52 pm
Tho they've apparently been testing the heak out of these suits here on Earth so i'm not sure if that's entirely necessary...
Maybe in order to have real datas about the effect of the final splashdown on human body? Kind of multiple sensors as there is on crash-testing mannequin?
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/28/2018 04:52 pm
I wonder about putting a mannequin in the Dragon for DM 1 but unlike Starman, this one would have the suit fully pressurized and covered in sensors to check everything over while traveling to the ISS (the fact that SapceX didn't do that for the FH honestly surprised me, but that's for another discussion) ... Tho they've apparently been testing the heak out of these suits here on Earth so i'm not sure if that's entirely necessary...
While NASA will want some more normal things to bring aboard the Dragon on this mission, I bet SpaceX will be allowed to put something small and fun on board given that i'm sure there is plenty of margin for the mission... NASA did approve the big wheel of cheese for the first cargo Dragon after all...
I'm not sure how valuable DM1 would be as a test for the suit, given it would not be exposed to vacuum at any point (out at least you would hope not)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/03/2018 03:46 pm
I wonder about putting a mannequin in the Dragon for DM 1 but unlike Starman, this one would have the suit fully pressurized and covered in sensors to check everything over while traveling to the ISS (the fact that SapceX didn't do that for the FH honestly surprised me, but that's for another discussion) ... Tho they've apparently been testing the heak out of these suits here on Earth so i'm not sure if that's entirely necessary...
While NASA will want some more normal things to bring aboard the Dragon on this mission, I bet SpaceX will be allowed to put something small and fun on board given that i'm sure there is plenty of margin for the mission... NASA did approve the big wheel of cheese for the first cargo Dragon after all...
I'm not sure how valuable DM1 would be as a test for the suit, given it would not be exposed to vacuum at any point (out at least you would hope not)
Maybe to have a live ECLSS and com system check (using the Zond 'tape recorder with pre-recorded dialogue in the suit' trick)?
Post by: Garrett on 06/15/2018 11:24 am
I'm not sure how valuable DM1 would be as a test for the suit, given it would not be exposed to vacuum at any point (out at least you would hope not)
Maybe for fit checks and belt-buckling checks under microgravity? The ISS crew could give feedback on any unforeseen issues.
Also some feedback on how well it stores under microg, and to have spare parts, though I know each suit is unique to the astronaut wearing it, so this is unlikely.
I haven't been following this closely: is a mannequin/suit going on DM1 or is this just speculation of what if?
Post by: tvg98 on 06/20/2018 11:36 pm
Quote
Crew Dragon is at @NASA’s Plum Brook Station testing facility in Ohio, home to the largest thermal vacuum chamber in the world, to demonstrate its capability to withstand the extreme temperatures and vacuum of space. Once complete, Crew Dragon will travel to Kennedy Space Center in Florida ahead of its first flight.https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1009580017049747456 (https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1009580017049747456)
Post by: vaporcobra on 06/21/2018 12:55 am
QuoteCrew Dragon is at @NASA’s Plum Brook Station testing facility in Ohio, home to the largest thermal vacuum chamber in the world, to demonstrate its capability to withstand the extreme temperatures and vacuum of space. Once complete, Crew Dragon will travel to Kennedy Space Center in Florida ahead of its first flight.https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1009580017049747456 (https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1009580017049747456)
And higher res from Twitter! ::)
Post by: jpo234 on 06/21/2018 05:33 am
Post by: Alexphysics on 06/21/2018 05:36 am
Post by: vaporcobra on 06/21/2018 06:25 am
Where in the process to the launch is the Plum Brooks testing? Is August still achievable?
Nov-Jan timeframe is most likely, currently. At this rate, the main bottleneck is going to be Falcon 9, IMHO.
Post by: envy887 on 06/21/2018 11:27 am
How so?Where in the process to the launch is the Plum Brooks testing? Is August still achievable?
Nov-Jan timeframe is most likely, currently. At this rate, the main bottleneck is going to be Falcon 9, IMHO.
Post by: abaddon on 06/21/2018 01:36 pm
The only bottleneck I can think of is COPV 2.0 not being finished and available for the LV. It seems to be a requirement for DM-1.How so?Where in the process to the launch is the Plum Brooks testing? Is August still achievable?
Nov-Jan timeframe is most likely, currently. At this rate, the main bottleneck is going to be Falcon 9, IMHO.
Post by: Alexphysics on 06/21/2018 01:59 pm
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/09/2018 07:22 pm
QuoteKavandi: SpaceX just wrapped up thermal vacuum testing [of Crew Dragon] at Plum Brook. #AIAAPropEnergy
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1016302142062321665 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1016302142062321665)
Edit to add context:QuoteThe AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum is starting at 8 am EDT with a keynote by NASA Glenn director Janet Kavandi. That’ll be webcast along with some other sessions, such as one later this morning on SLS and Orion:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1016288877034790912
And now... to the Cape!!
Back in June SpaceX said:
"Crew Dragon is at @NASA’s Plum Brook Station testing facility in Ohio, home to the largest thermal vacuum chamber in the world, to demonstrate its capability to withstand the extreme temperatures and vacuum of space. Once complete, Crew Dragon will travel to Kennedy Space Center in Florida ahead of its first flight."
https://www.instagram.com/p/BkQ8w0mFoxa/
Looks like their hardware at least is on track for a September launch.
Note that Elon has been guiding for Crew Dragon's shipment to the cape in late July since May 2nd (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/991784449275670528), so they may even be slightly ahead of schedule ;)
Post by: yg1968 on 07/10/2018 03:51 am
http://spacenews.com/crew-dragon-completes-thermal-vacuum-tests-ahead-of-first-test-flight/
Post by: Jakusb on 07/10/2018 07:11 am
The COPV's were being installed on the tanks when the last NASA update came out (thanks to it we knew the booster for that mission is B1051!) so I'd suppose they're more than finished by now.
I would expect 1051 to be leaving Hawthorne around 18-23th, based on a predicted and required 2 week production rate.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 07/13/2018 01:15 am
Quote
@SpaceX
Crew Dragon arrived in Florida this week ahead of its first flight after completing thermal vacuum and acoustic testing at @NASA’s Plum Brook Station in Ohio. http://instagram.com/p/BlJVBidF4I2/
Post by: Comga on 07/13/2018 04:40 am
Beyond the white or light grey ramps, as opposed to black, are those covers over the exhaust ports?
I wonder if they are to prevent water intrusion and were added when SpaceX went from land landing to ocean?
Post by: rpapo on 07/13/2018 09:43 am
What are we seeing in that photo of Dragon 2 with the Super Dracos?Notice two things from the HR version of that photo: (1) The exhaust ports are covered by something that is marked as "remove before launch", and (2) The color of the ramps is not grey, but silver. That makes sense in the same sense as they silvered much of the tail portion of SpaceShip Two. Reflecting heat away is more effective than absorbing it, at least for certain cases.
Beyond the white or light grey ramps, as opposed to black, are those covers over the exhaust ports?
I wonder if they are to prevent water intrusion and were added when SpaceX went from land landing to ocean?
Post by: woods170 on 07/13/2018 01:00 pm
What are we seeing in that photo of Dragon 2 with the Super Dracos?Notice two things from the HR version of that photo: (1) The exhaust ports are covered by something that is marked as "remove before launch", and (2) The color of the ramps is not grey, but silver. That makes sense in the same sense as they silvered much of the tail portion of SpaceShip Two. Reflecting heat away is more effective than absorbing it, at least for certain cases.
Beyond the white or light grey ramps, as opposed to black, are those covers over the exhaust ports?
I wonder if they are to prevent water intrusion and were added when SpaceX went from land landing to ocean?
The silver material is NOT for heat reflection.
It is the same silver-colored material that is used to cover the primary heat shield on Cargo Dragon, as well as the primary heat shield on Crew Dragon. It is for moisture protection. Given that the exhaust ports for Super Draco are covered in the same material as the primary heat shield (PICA-X) you can expect the same application of silvery material for moisture protection.
PICA(-X) is known to absorb moisture (water) from the atmosphere. When absorbed into the PICA material the water negatively influences the performance of PICA as a heat shield material. It is therefore necessary to prevent PICA from absorbing moisture. That is why the PICA is covered in the silvery material as seen in the recent pictures.
More on this subject: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=me_etds (https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=me_etds)
Oh, and uh, high-res version of the "Crew-Dragon-arriving-at-KSC" pic is below.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/13/2018 01:06 pm
ARTICLE: Crew Dragon arrives at Cape; Space Station schedule to drive DM-1 launch date -by Chris Gebhardt:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/07/crew-dragon-cape-iss-schedule-drive-dm-1-date/
Post by: cd-slam on 07/14/2018 12:05 am
It says "core B1050 will be next out of Hawthorne and on the test stand at McGregor soon."
But in the core spotting thread B1050 was claimed to be spotted leaving Hawthorne on July 7. Was that information wrong?
Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
Post by: Jakusb on 07/14/2018 10:47 am
Question on the article.
It says "core B1050 will be next out of Hawthorne and on the test stand at McGregor soon."
But in the core spotting thread B1050 was claimed to be spotted leaving Hawthorne on July 7. Was that information wrong?
I have to agree that this is (very likely) incorrect/outdated info in the article...
In L2 there is even more confirmation that 1050 is indeed already @McGregor for several days, maybe a week.
Since coreNrs are virtually impossible to see since Block-5, this is all assumption, but it does fully aligns with our predictions and earlier tidbits from SpaceX interview @Hawthorne..
Mainly the number of cores to be produced this year combined with the statement of being at a pace of 1 core per roughly 2 weeks is foundation for 1050 being at McGregor, possibly even being tested even, already..
The same logic would have 1051 hitting the road in about 10 days.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 07/14/2018 01:19 pm
Question on the article.
It says "core B1050 will be next out of Hawthorne and on the test stand at McGregor soon."
But in the core spotting thread B1050 was claimed to be spotted leaving Hawthorne on July 7. Was that information wrong?
I have to agree that this is (very likely) incorrect/outdated info in the article...
In L2 there is even more confirmation that 1050 is indeed already @McGregor for several days, maybe a week.
Since coreNrs are virtually impossible to see since Block-5, this is all assumption, but it does fully aligns with our predictions and earlier tidbits from SpaceX interview @Hawthorne..
Mainly the number of cores to be produced this year combined with the statement of being at a pace of 1 core per roughly 2 weeks is foundation for 1050 being at McGregor, possibly even being tested even, already..
The same logic would have 1051 hitting the road in about 10 days.
I go by the first post on the L2 core location thread, which until this morning listed B1050 as being at Hawthorne and part of the "Assumed upcoming Test Schedule." Glad that's changed and it's at McGregor, now. But I go by the info we have confirmed at time of publication which did not have confirmation that B1050 was at Hawthorne (at least by date stamps on posts in L2).
Post by: Jakusb on 07/14/2018 01:48 pm
Question on the article.
It says "core B1050 will be next out of Hawthorne and on the test stand at McGregor soon."
But in the core spotting thread B1050 was claimed to be spotted leaving Hawthorne on July 7. Was that information wrong?
I have to agree that this is (very likely) incorrect/outdated info in the article...
In L2 there is even more confirmation that 1050 is indeed already @McGregor for several days, maybe a week.
Since coreNrs are virtually impossible to see since Block-5, this is all assumption, but it does fully aligns with our predictions and earlier tidbits from SpaceX interview @Hawthorne..
Mainly the number of cores to be produced this year combined with the statement of being at a pace of 1 core per roughly 2 weeks is foundation for 1050 being at McGregor, possibly even being tested even, already..
The same logic would have 1051 hitting the road in about 10 days.
I go by the first post on the L2 core location thread, which until this morning listed B1050 as being at Hawthorne and part of the "Assumed upcoming Test Schedule." Glad that's changed and it's at McGregor, now. But I go by the info we have confirmed at time of publication which did not have confirmation that B1050 was at Hawthorne (at least by date stamps on posts in L2).
Me bad, I was late in updating that post..
I will try to do a better job of getting that post also as up to date as possible. ;)
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 07/14/2018 02:42 pm
Question on the article.
It says "core B1050 will be next out of Hawthorne and on the test stand at McGregor soon."
But in the core spotting thread B1050 was claimed to be spotted leaving Hawthorne on July 7. Was that information wrong?
I have to agree that this is (very likely) incorrect/outdated info in the article...
In L2 there is even more confirmation that 1050 is indeed already @McGregor for several days, maybe a week.
Since coreNrs are virtually impossible to see since Block-5, this is all assumption, but it does fully aligns with our predictions and earlier tidbits from SpaceX interview @Hawthorne..
Mainly the number of cores to be produced this year combined with the statement of being at a pace of 1 core per roughly 2 weeks is foundation for 1050 being at McGregor, possibly even being tested even, already..
The same logic would have 1051 hitting the road in about 10 days.
I go by the first post on the L2 core location thread, which until this morning listed B1050 as being at Hawthorne and part of the "Assumed upcoming Test Schedule." Glad that's changed and it's at McGregor, now. But I go by the info we have confirmed at time of publication which did not have confirmation that B1050 was at Hawthorne (at least by date stamps on posts in L2).
Me bad, I was late in updating that post..
I will try to do a better job of getting that post also as up to date as possible. ;)
Sorry, didn't mean for that to sound harsh from my part, just that I didn't see confirmation prior to publication. ;D You do an awesome job with that chart, and it's greatly useful for keeping track of all cores in play.
Post by: Geron on 07/16/2018 10:05 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 07/16/2018 10:23 pm
Any chance spacex could sell seats to space tourists for dm1? Like x million per seat?
Why would they sell tickets for a ride aboard a test spacecraft?
Nobody does this. Virgin Galactic doesn't do this. Neither does Blue Origin.
Post by: Geron on 07/17/2018 01:32 am
Post by: gongora on 07/17/2018 01:47 am
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.
The space shuttle wasn't designed to fly without crew. Sending someone unsupervised to the ISS for a couple of weeks with no training could be an issue.
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/17/2018 02:02 am
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/17/2018 02:41 am
Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.I seem to remember that the Shuttle landing gear control was not connected to the flight computers so that It would require people on board for deployment during landing. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think this was the case.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
Post by: RonM on 07/17/2018 02:53 am
Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.I seem to remember that the Shuttle landing gear control was not connected to the flight computers so that It would require people on board for deployment during landing. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think this was the case.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
I believe the point was the shuttle could have been designed to operate without crew. Of course, that would have been more expensive and it didn't seem important at the time.
Post by: DigitalMan on 07/17/2018 03:38 am
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.
DM-1 is going to attach to the ISS, no? It would seem to be a substantial challenge to get NASA permission for non-NASA folks to be on board.
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/17/2018 04:14 am
I actually doubt it'd be significantly more expensive at all. In fact, the initial flight would've been cheaper if it had been uncrewed, and they could've spared all the mods needed to put ejection seats for the first couple flights.Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.I seem to remember that the Shuttle landing gear control was not connected to the flight computers so that It would require people on board for deployment during landing. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think this was the case.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
I believe the point was the shuttle could have been designed to operate without crew. Of course, that would have been more expensive and it didn't seem important at the time.
Shuttle was fly by wire, and except for final approach was basically computer controlled the whole time. A relay to trigger wheel-down would've been actually trivial.
In fact, I believe they even installed the equipment necessary to do this on later flights but never used it. (There's a Wayne Hale blog post about this, I think.)
I think it was largely internal politics that prevented the ability to launch a full mission without crew.
tl;dr: It totally makes sense to test fly uncrewed at first.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/17/2018 04:23 am
I actually doubt it'd be significantly more expensive at all. In fact, the initial flight would've been cheaper if it had been uncrewed, and they could've spared all the mods needed to put ejection seats for the first couple flights.Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.I seem to remember that the Shuttle landing gear control was not connected to the flight computers so that It would require people on board for deployment during landing. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think this was the case.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
I believe the point was the shuttle could have been designed to operate without crew. Of course, that would have been more expensive and it didn't seem important at the time.
Shuttle was fly by wire, and except for final approach was basically computer controlled the whole time. A relay to trigger wheel-down would've been actually trivial.
In fact, I believe they even installed the equipment necessary to do this on later flights but never used it. (There's a Wayne Hale blog post about this, I think.)
I think it was largely internal politics that prevented the ability to launch a full mission without crew.
tl;dr: It totally makes sense to test fly uncrewed at first.
I have the same memories about shuttle. It was essentially all there.
I’m just happy that after 7 years we are finally this close to US human space flight.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 07/17/2018 04:24 pm
I actually doubt it'd be significantly more expensive at all. In fact, the initial flight would've been cheaper if it had been uncrewed, and they could've spared all the mods needed to put ejection seats for the first couple flights.Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.I seem to remember that the Shuttle landing gear control was not connected to the flight computers so that It would require people on board for deployment during landing. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think this was the case.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
I believe the point was the shuttle could have been designed to operate without crew. Of course, that would have been more expensive and it didn't seem important at the time.
Shuttle was fly by wire, and except for final approach was basically computer controlled the whole time. A relay to trigger wheel-down would've been actually trivial.
In fact, I believe they even installed the equipment necessary to do this on later flights but never used it. (There's a Wayne Hale blog post about this, I think.)
I think it was largely internal politics that prevented the ability to launch a full mission without crew.
tl;dr: It totally makes sense to test fly uncrewed at first.
I have the same memories about shuttle. It was essentially all there.
I’m just happy that after 7 years we are finally this close to US human space flight.
If memory serves, it was a cable that had to be physically attached to the controls by the crew. Shuttle, throughout its life, could never be flown without a crew -- or a crew to install a cable on orbit to then allow it be flown, for landing, uncrewed.
The cable to deploy the landing gear was for a damage situation where the Orbiter *might* survive reentry and if it did could then be flown to a runway (thus the need to deploy the gear).
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/30/2018 05:47 pm
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/07/asap-boeing-failure-positive-spacex-crew-announcement/
- By Chris Gebhardt
(Includes renders by Nathan Koga for NSF/L2)
Post by: DreamyPickle on 07/31/2018 01:52 pm
Maybe we'll find out more on August 3rd when crew assignments are announced?
Post by: gongora on 07/31/2018 02:14 pm
Any guess on when this will launch? Thread title is NET August but it doesn't seem plausible to launch in <30 days.
Maybe we'll find out more on August 3rd when crew assignments are announced?
We have no idea. Hopefully we'll find out more from the Aug. 3 announcements.
Post by: ricmsmith on 07/31/2018 04:42 pm
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.
It's not a waste, it's a testbed. And people got a lot more cautious after the loss of two orbiters and their crew. Risk is part of spaceflight and it always will be but it has to be managed and proportionate risk. The risk of sending up paying passengers on an otherwise untested spacecraft, just to make a bit more money is not a risk worth taking at all.
Post by: marsbase on 07/31/2018 05:49 pm
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.With the shuttle, NASA used what they called "success-oriented management" https://go.nasa.gov/2OxYcwP. To reduce cost, they did not do thorough testing on all components but instead assembled them and tested the assembled unit as a whole. As the Challenger explosion demonstrated, operating outside previous test parameters with crew onboard is a bad idea. NASA was scarred by the loss of two crews (they use the term "scarred" in discussions with SpaceX) and as a result have become much more conservative about crew protection. Perhaps too conservative. Elon Musk has been clear that people will die as a result of Mars colonization. Hopefully, as few as possible.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/31/2018 05:57 pm
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.
It's not a waste, it's a testbed. And people got a lot more cautious after the loss of two orbiters and their crew. Risk is part of spaceflight and it always will be but it has to be managed and proportionate risk. The risk of sending up paying passengers on an otherwise untested spacecraft, just to make a bit more money is not a risk worth taking at all.
Also, it won't be empty. They will be sending up some cargo on the test flight.
Post by: gongora on 08/02/2018 06:34 pm
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2018/08/02/nasas-commercial-crew-program-target-test-flight-dates-3/
Targeted Test Flight Dates:
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): late 2018 / early 2019
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): mid-2019
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): November 2018
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): April 2019
Post by: kdhilliard on 08/03/2018 12:23 pm
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/03/2018 01:01 pm
what I guess from a SpaceX only perspective (since the Starliner has not really ever flown) I am kind of surprised that its all that necessary.
I dont know "how much" the software" of the crewed Dragon is to that of the uncrewed Dragons...and really the strength of SpaceX design should be their ability to master software...they have had reasonable (quite good) success with the Dragon...
if there is a "black hole" waiting for Dragon my guess would be it is in the 1) new propulsion system 2) the crew interface and 3) in the life support (in decreasing order)
by this point the Falcon is as reliable as any launch vehicle the US has ever had for X number of flights
they could reasonably in my view crew it...but well they wont :)
what I find "interesting" from a "pilot" design standpoint...if they autodock with the station; that will be the start of the end of "pilot" docking
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/03/2018 01:13 pm
With the shuttle, NASA used what they called "success-oriented management" https://go.nasa.gov/2OxYcwP. To reduce cost, they did not do thorough testing on all components but instead assembled them and tested the assembled unit as a whole. As the Challenger explosion demonstrated, operating outside previous test parameters with crew onboard is a bad idea. NASA was scarred by the loss of two crews (they use the term "scarred" in discussions with SpaceX) and as a result have become much more conservative about crew protection. Perhaps too conservative. Elon Musk has been clear that people will die as a result of Mars colonization. Hopefully, as few as possible.
Strangely enough although as I am told there were some pretty close calls..."success oriented management" worked with the shuttle
As you imply, No shuttle was ever lost due to a failure of a component ...like what caused the loss of the last Boeing on a test flight, the B29 that killed Eddie Allen and his crew when the engines caught on fire.
they were all lost by a failure of management and the need to operate the shuttle with a known component failure tree.
Pilots were on board the Triple 7 when on its maiden flight the engines both compressor stalled (which is the worst problem Boeing has had on the maiden test flight of a commercial airliner) and were responsible for the "fix"
NASA HSF has a well lets call it a "unique" view toward flight safety. In large manner it is because all the expertise to do it, retired a long time ago...and just a thought occurred here...with the stand down of human spaceflight for the last bunch of years...its unclear that any real expertise in operation of a crewed vehicle exist...
Post by: Alexphysics on 08/03/2018 01:18 pm
Post by: marsbase on 08/03/2018 01:45 pm
As you imply, No shuttle was ever lost due to a failure of a componentNot at all. The Challenger was lost due to the failure of an O-ring component of the solid booster. It was being operated outside the tested range of acceptable temperatures. You are correct that this was also a management failure since NASA engineers told management the solid booster should not be flown at those untested temperatures.
Columbia was also lost due to a component failure, in that case the breakage of foam insulation on the shuttle fuel tank. I call it a failure since it was not designed to break in that way. This was a double management failure since the shuttle was allowed to launch with known faulty foam and NASA management ignored efforts to photograph the shuttle for damage.
NASA management could have prevented both tragedies by requiring testing and modification of those components or modification of launch conditions to match tested scenarios.
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/03/2018 01:59 pm
As you imply, No shuttle was ever lost due to a failure of a componentNot at all. The Challenger was lost due to the failure of an O-ring component of the solid booster. It was being operated outside the tested range of acceptable temperatures. You are correct that this was also a management failure since NASA engineers told management the solid booster should not be flown at those untested temperatures.
Columbia was also lost due to a component failure, in that case the breakage of foam insulation on the shuttle fuel tank. I call it a failure since it was not designed to break in that way. This was a double management failure since the shuttle was allowed to launch with known faulty foam and NASA management ignored efforts to photograph the shuttle for damage.
NASA management could have prevented both tragedies by requiring testing and modification of those components or modification of launch conditions to match tested scenarios.
had the O rings been operated in the temp range that NASA knew did not allow blowby they could have flown forever with that "known defect"
I am in more agreement with you about the foam. but its still more a management issue then a component one. IN both cases as you and I point out management could have fixed the problem but elected to continue flying
none of these are in the range of the failure that cost the first B29...ie the engines were simply a component failure due to design issues. it would have been like an SSME exploding
edit...it is to me unlikely that Dragon2 has any "exploding engines or other parts" in it...Starliner has never flown so you dont know but thats doubtful as well
Post by: LaunchedIn68 on 08/03/2018 02:28 pm
Post by: Roy_H on 08/03/2018 07:05 pm
How many crew hours will be required for DM1? Berthing and de-berthing, unloading some supplies (I would expect minimal, but does anyone know how much supplies, and time required?) Also apparently re-packing for some items to return to earth.
First half of September and first half of November there are only 3 crew members on ISS due to crew rotations. Most of October has full crew of 6. Original schedule FIFP (Feburary 2018) showed both Starliner and Dragon demo missions in September (sequentially one in first half of month then the other). HTV7 will occupy crew time between second half of August to first half October, and Dragon supplies via SPX second half of November to late December and finally Orbital from early November to January. So to my eyes, the crew is busier in November than September and best time would be second half of September to mid October.
If HTV7 was so time consuming, why was the demo originally scheduled during that time? Why is it now not acceptable?
Post by: abaddon on 08/03/2018 07:16 pm
So DM1 is ready to fly SeptemberI must have missed that, where was that stated?
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 08/03/2018 07:23 pm
So DM1 is ready to fly September, but ISS scheduling has no time until November. Even November looks busy.
How many crew hours will be required for DM1? Berthing and de-berthing, unloading some supplies (I would expect minimal, but does anyone know how much supplies, and time required?) Also apparently re-packing for some items to return to earth.
Enough that this becomes a problem with HTV-7 at the same time the crew handovers, Soyuz rotations, and crew reductions take place. Remember, beginning in October, total ISS crew will be reduce temporarily from 6 to 5 as Russia cuts back its crew compliment to just 2 people. There will also be internal elements to DM-1 that the Station crew will perform with this being the first Crew Dragon at ISS.
First half of September and first half of November there are only 3 crew members on ISS due to crew rotations. Most of October has full crew of 6. Original schedule FIFP (Feburary 2018) showed both Starliner and Dragon demo missions in September (sequentially one in first half of month then the other). HTV7 will occupy crew time between second half of August to first half October, and Dragon supplies via SPX second half of November to late December and finally Orbital from early November to January. So to my eyes, the crew is busier in November than September and best time would be second half of September to mid October.
If HTV7 was so time consuming, why was the demo originally scheduled during that time? Why is it now not acceptable?
HTV-7 is launching NET- 10 Sept. So crew time will not be dedicated to it in August.
DM-1 was never scheduled for the same time at HTV-7. DM-1 had a "work to" NET (No Earlier Than) date of 31 August. That is not, and was never, a scheduled launch date.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 08/03/2018 07:23 pm
So DM1 is ready to fly SeptemberI must have missed that, where was that stated?
;) https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/07/crew-dragon-cape-iss-schedule-drive-dm-1-date/
Post by: Comga on 08/03/2018 07:34 pm
So DM1 is ready to fly September, but ISS scheduling has no time until November. Even November looks busy.
How many crew hours will be required for DM1? Berthing and de-berthing,...
(snip)
Dragon 2 (and CST-100) will dock autonomously, not be berthed.
It's certain that the astronauts will be fully engaged in monitoring the approach and docking, probably with a hand over a safety switch, but just not in active control and not executing a berthing.
However, the time to monitor approach and docking shouldn't be all that much.
Interesting priorities.
And if Boeing's second flight can be extended to a full ISS rotation, as a lifeboat for three astronauts, wouldn't it make sense to let SpaceX's DM-1 launch early and wait for astronaut availability on orbit while docked?
Post by: Alexphysics on 08/03/2018 07:35 pm
Dragon 2 WILL DOCK
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 08/03/2018 07:41 pm
So DM1 is ready to fly September, but ISS scheduling has no time until November. Even November looks busy.
How many crew hours will be required for DM1? Berthing and de-berthing,...
(snip)
Dragon 2 (and CST-100) will dock autonomously, not be berthed.
It's certain that the astronauts will be fully engaged in monitoring the approach and docking, probably with a hand over a safety switch, but just not in active control and not executing a berthing.
However, the time to monitor approach and docking shouldn't be all that much.
Interesting priorities.
Not sure what you mean by interesting priorities. Are you saying an uncrewed test flight carrying minimal supplies to ISS should take precedent over a needed crew rotation and a needed and large-scale resupply and science delivery mission (HTV-7)? If so, why?
And if Boeing's second flight can be extended to a full ISS rotation, as a lifeboat for three astronauts, wouldn't it make sense to let SpaceX's DM-1 launch early and wait for astronaut availability on orbit while docked?
Boeing's CFT being potentially being extended to a six month mission has nothing to do with SpaceX's 14-day DM-1 flight. They are in no way connected to each other.
And how would launching the uncrewed DM-1 Dragon in September and having it loiter on orbit for two months before approaching ISS be a realistic test of its launch, rendezvous, docking profile it will fly to Station -- a key component of the DM-1 test flight?
Post by: Tomness on 08/03/2018 07:55 pm
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/03/2018 08:08 pm
Will Commercial Crew get to unitize 3-6 hr docking? that be nice feature for the Astronauts.
They have to. Neither capsule has a toilet.
Post by: DigitalMan on 08/03/2018 08:20 pm
Will Commercial Crew get to unitize 3-6 hr docking? that be nice feature for the Astronauts.
They have to. Neither capsule has a toilet.
That's what I thought, but what do you make of this from reddit?
Quote
christinaremter USA 3 points 3 hours ago
is there a bathroom on the new commercial flights? dragon and starliner crew
nasa NASA 6 points 3 hours ago
For Dragon, yes. -Bob
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/03/2018 08:21 pm
Will Commercial Crew get to unitize 3-6 hr docking? that be nice feature for the Astronauts.
They have to. Neither capsule has a toilet.
That's what I thought, but what do you make of this from reddit?Quotechristinaremter USA 3 points 3 hours ago
is there a bathroom on the new commercial flights? dragon and starliner crew
nasa NASA 6 points 3 hours ago
For Dragon, yes. -Bob
That's news to me, and probably also to everyone else here!!!
Post by: Comga on 08/03/2018 09:23 pm
Dragon 2 (and CST-100) will dock autonomously, not be berthed.
It's certain that the astronauts will be fully engaged in monitoring the approach and docking, probably with a hand over a safety switch, but just not in active control and not executing a berthing.
However, the time to monitor approach and docking shouldn't be all that much.
Interesting priorities.
Not sure what you mean by interesting priorities. Are you saying an uncrewed test flight carrying minimal supplies to ISS should take precedent over a needed crew rotation and a needed and large-scale resupply and science delivery mission (HTV-7)? If so, why?
Because the future of the ISS depends on Commercial Crew certification and time is ticking, with a pretty firm deadline approaching vis-à-vis Soyuz availability.
Quote
And if Boeing's second flight can be extended to a full ISS rotation, as a lifeboat for three astronauts, wouldn't it make sense to let SpaceX's DM-1 launch early and wait for astronaut availability on orbit while docked?
Boeing's CFT being potentially being extended to a six month mission has nothing to do with SpaceX's 14-day DM-1 flight. They are in no way connected to each other.
Of course they are connected. They are the competing entries in the Commercial Crew program.
If Boeing was to have a significant problem (which they probably do not) SpaceX as the other Commercial Crew provider is supposed to take up the slack. If there was a delay to Boeing's first mission with crew, where they are planning on bringing along a third crew member and staying for a full rotation, the same should apply to SpaceX.
If it's a necessary service, both providers should be primed to provide it. That's the point of two contractors.
Quote
And how would launching the uncrewed DM-1 Dragon in September and having it loiter on orbit for two months before approaching ISS be a realistic test of its launch, rendezvous, docking profile it will fly to Station -- a key component of the DM-1 test flight?
That is not what was suggested, which was to launch as soon as the time could be found in the astronauts' schedule for approach and docking, and have Dragon 2 "loiter" docked. That reduce the amount of quick unload cargo on DM-1, like fresh fruit or biological samples, but those would be the tradeoffs for getting a Commercial Crew flight in ASAP.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 08/03/2018 11:01 pm
Dragon 2 (and CST-100) will dock autonomously, not be berthed.
It's certain that the astronauts will be fully engaged in monitoring the approach and docking, probably with a hand over a safety switch, but just not in active control and not executing a berthing.
However, the time to monitor approach and docking shouldn't be all that much.
Interesting priorities.
Not sure what you mean by interesting priorities. Are you saying an uncrewed test flight carrying minimal supplies to ISS should take precedent over a needed crew rotation and a needed and large-scale resupply and science delivery mission (HTV-7)? If so, why?
Because the future of the ISS depends on Commercial Crew certification and time is ticking, with a pretty firm deadline approaching vis-à-vis Soyuz availability.QuoteAnd if Boeing's second flight can be extended to a full ISS rotation, as a lifeboat for three astronauts, wouldn't it make sense to let SpaceX's DM-1 launch early and wait for astronaut availability on orbit while docked?
Boeing's CFT being potentially being extended to a six month mission has nothing to do with SpaceX's 14-day DM-1 flight. They are in no way connected to each other.
Of course they are connected. They are the competing entries in the Commercial Crew program.
If Boeing was to have a significant problem (which they probably do not) SpaceX as the other Commercial Crew provider is supposed to take up the slack. If there was a delay to Boeing's first mission with crew, where they are planning on bringing along a third crew member and staying for a full rotation, the same should apply to SpaceX.
If it's a necessary service, both providers should be primed to provide it. That's the point of two contractors.QuoteAnd how would launching the uncrewed DM-1 Dragon in September and having it loiter on orbit for two months before approaching ISS be a realistic test of its launch, rendezvous, docking profile it will fly to Station -- a key component of the DM-1 test flight?
That is not what was suggested, which was to launch as soon as the time could be found in the astronauts' schedule for approach and docking, and have Dragon 2 "loiter" docked. That reduce the amount of quick unload cargo on DM-1, like fresh fruit or biological samples, but those would be the tradeoffs for getting a Commercial Crew flight in ASAP.
Regardless of eventual "one provider can pick up the slack if the other has a mishap" built-in element to CCP, that future consideration is not what the uncrewed test flights are meant to demonstrate and certify. It appears to me that you are advocating that NASA and SpaceX radically change just Dragon's uncrewed test flight just to rush to get it launched and then perform a mission that doesn't match the test timelines that have been under development -- and that the only reason for suggested, radical change for the uncrewed SpX demo is because Boeing's crewed test flight (not uncrewed test flight) might potentially perhaps be extended (which is has not been decided on) in duration. And you're saying SpaceX and NASA should do that for the uncrewed flight instead of waiting to launch until November when the SpX DM-1 uncrewed test can be carried out as intended. I really do not see the connection. It's apples and oranges; uncrewed by one provider and crewed by the other provider -- all based on a potential scenario of Boeing's CFT maybe getting an extension.
I fully understand and am aware that Soyuz seats expire for the USOS in 2019. But how is rushing and changing things last minute for only 1 provider's uncrewed test going to change that and future timelines? NASA is saying there isn't time to do SpX DM-1 until November. So what do you gain by launching early and "dock loitering"? Nothing.
Post by: Comga on 08/04/2018 03:39 am
It’s minimizing wasted time.
And I am not advocating doing anything different with DM-1 than waiting to unpack it.
The only reason to do the unmanned test flights is to learn things about the system ahead of the crewed flights. It will take time to digest whatever is observed and the Commercial Crew safety reviews have all taken longer than originally anticipated. Earlier launch buys more time.
ASAP puts the far end of the probable date range for certification past the end date for Soyuz availability. That’s pretty frightening and NASA should be doing what they can to buy extra time before then. Right now they are prioritizing HTV-7 over DM-1 and the path to Commercial Crew. Although there are a plethora of “moving parts” in the ISS program that need to mesh, I find that curious and concerning.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 08/04/2018 02:31 pm
It’s not rushing, Chris
Needlessly advancing a launch date to satisfy a personal desire to get the capsule off the ground as soon as possible just so it can wait months or weeks for the crew to have time to get to it isn't rushing? OK.
It’s minimizing wasted time.
What wasted time? NASA is saying point blank that there is no time in SpaceX's prep schedule and the ISS schedule to launch before November. Please show me were there is "wasted time" as I'm not seeing it.
And I am not advocating doing anything different with DM-1 than waiting to unpack it.
That, in it's very essence , is "doing [something] different with DM-1" as DM-1 has not been designed or conceived of as a loiter/docked mission.
The only reason to do the unmanned test flights is to learn things about the system ahead of the crewed flights.
Glad you bring this up. This push to November because there is no time to get the mission in before then might actually allow SpaceX time to swap out the parachute reef line cutters on DM-1 Dragon to the new ones that will be use on DM-2 onward. Testing that critical system on DM-1 instead of the first crew test could end up being a nice benefit of there not being time in the overall ISS and crew schedule until November, and as you put it, would allow the teams to "learn things about the system ahead of crewed flights".... something there wouldn't be time for in a scenario you propose of launching as soon as possible just to get the capsule into orbit.
It will take time to digest whatever is observed and the Commercial Crew safety reviews have all taken longer than originally anticipated. Earlier launch buys more time.
Of course it will take time. I see no one on here (and nothing in my answers) that asserts a different stance. But an important element of this is the complete overview of the entire integrated system through the entire flight envelope. Launching early just for the sake of launching early does not "buy more time" when integrated system performance relies on data gathered during EOM ops.
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 08/04/2018 02:46 pm
It’s not rushing, Chris
It’s minimizing wasted time.
And I am not advocating doing anything different with DM-1 than waiting to unpack it.
The only reason to do the unmanned test flights is to learn things about the system ahead of the crewed flights. It will take time to digest whatever is observed and the Commercial Crew safety reviews have all taken longer than originally anticipated. Earlier launch buys more time.
ASAP puts the far end of the probable date range for certification past the end date for Soyuz availability. That’s pretty frightening and NASA should be doing what they can to buy extra time before then. Right now they are prioritizing HTV-7 over DM-1 and the path to Commercial Crew. Although there are a plethora of “moving parts” in the ISS program that need to mesh, I find that curious and concerning.
I am no one, but I agree with Comga, and possibly further.
I find these flight priorities shortsighted and concerning. All four commercial crew test flights are on the critical path for 0 ISS utilization in the USOC, until at least one of the providers is certified. Therefore these flights should have the highest priority other than those required for ISS crew safety. Given the typical ISS supply levels it is unlikely that any, but certainly not more than 1 of the supply flights are schedule critical.
Not sure what you mean by interesting priorities. Are you saying an uncrewed test flight carrying minimal supplies to ISS should take precedent over a needed crew rotation and a needed and large-scale resupply and science delivery mission (HTV-7)? If so, why?
I fully understand and am aware that Soyuz seats expire for the USOS in 2019. But how is rushing and changing things last minute for only 1 provider's uncrewed test going to change that and future timelines? NASA is saying there isn't time to do SpX DM-1 until November. So what do you gain by launching early and "dock loitering"? Nothing.
NASA not having time until November is evidence of the priorities and flows from it, it's not justification for those priorities. Spx DM-1 should not be rushed nor modified; it should be flown as soon as it is ready, without delay. If there is no time to unpack or re-pack it then send it empty. The purpose of this flight is not cargo delivery or return, if there's not time for cargo then don't send the cargo. Any delay to the uncrewed test flight(s) is a potential further delay to the crewed test flight(s) if anything is found, and delays to any of the test flights, delays necessary products to the certification process.
Until there is a certified US crewed launch provider, all delays to the commercial crew test program (SpaceX and Boeing) risk the evacuation of the USOC. The consequence of this is large enough, however unlikely, that this risk should be minimized. Even if every other ISS flight was delayed 2-4 weeks, reduced utilization and disrupted schedules are far better than evacuation and zero utilization, and that is what the current priorities risk, and why the CC flights should not be delayed. Not rushed, flown when ready, without delay.
Post by: Alexphysics on 08/04/2018 03:04 pm
Post by: kdhilliard on 08/08/2018 06:10 pm
Quote
She was fired up. She said, "You know, I've even got a date when we're going to launch in November." That's how confident she was. But she said, "They wouldn't let me tell that today."Berger went on to say, "I think probably, if it happens, it would be in the last ten days of November or so."
Post by: gongora on 08/09/2018 02:49 am
Another good Eric Berger article, this one describing the work left for SpaceX to do for CC:QuoteHere’s what SpaceX must do to win the commercial crew race
Demo test, abort test, finish COPVs, test fuel loading, and so on. It's a long list.
ERIC BERGER - 8/9/2018, 7:59 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/heres-what-spacex-must-do-to-win-the-commercial-crew-race/
Edit to add: article includes status of Demo 1 hardwareQuoteLueders said the Block V variant of the Falcon 9 rocket first stage, as well as its upper stage, will soon ship from SpaceX’s factory in Hawthorne, California, to the company’s facilities in McGregor, Texas, for engine testing. Afterward, the rocket is scheduled to arrive at Florida’s Cape Canaveral in September. The company has also delivered the spacecraft to Florida, but they still need to finish the Dragon’s trunk for the mission and ship that.
Post by: envy887 on 08/09/2018 06:32 pm
Another good Eric Berger article, this one describing the work left for SpaceX to do for CC:QuoteHere’s what SpaceX must do to win the commercial crew race
Demo test, abort test, finish COPVs, test fuel loading, and so on. It's a long list.
ERIC BERGER - 8/9/2018, 7:59 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/heres-what-spacex-must-do-to-win-the-commercial-crew-race/
Edit to add: article includes status of Demo 1 hardwareQuoteLueders said the Block V variant of the Falcon 9 rocket first stage, as well as its upper stage, will soon ship from SpaceX’s factory in Hawthorne, California, to the company’s facilities in McGregor, Texas, for engine testing. Afterward, the rocket is scheduled to arrive at Florida’s Cape Canaveral in September. The company has also delivered the spacecraft to Florida, but they still need to finish the Dragon’s trunk for the mission and ship that.
It also says
Quote
“We have an agreement with SpaceX that they are going to take our launch vehicle configuration and run it through the actual crew-loading timeline to demonstrate consistency,” Lueders said. “It’s for us to get confidence on the crew-loading sequence.”
This means that the static fire and launch of the Demo-1 mission will follow fuel-loading procedures for crew missions, as will the static fire and launch of the in-flight abort mission. The fifth test will come during the static fire test of the Demo-2 flight.
So Berger is saying that all 5 loading tests will be on the DM-1, IFA test, and DM-2 vehicles, all in the crew configuration with Dragon.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/17/2018 05:45 pm
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/08/spacex-installation-lc-39a-caa-previews-crew-dragon/
- By Chris Gebhardt
- Includes photos and footage from Jack Beyer
Post by: mazen hesham on 09/11/2018 12:42 pm
Quote
Upcoming launches include the maiden flight of the Crew Dragon spacecraft on uncrewedhttp://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
demonstration mission DM-1 to the International Space Station from pad 39A, as early as late
November.
Post by: Eagandale4114 on 09/18/2018 02:12 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/19/2018 10:08 pm
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/09/spacex-pad-39a-upgrades-return-crew-operations/
- by Ian Atkinson
With thanks to Tom McCool for taking some pics :)
Post by: ZachS09 on 09/19/2018 10:13 pm
Even though it says that EchoStar 23 was the return to flight, it was actually SpaceX CRS-10 in February 2017.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 09/19/2018 10:14 pm
That article is a bit inaccurate.
Even though it says that EchoStar 23 was the return to flight, it was actually SpaceX CRS-10 in February 2017.
Will fix, sorry about that!
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/03/2018 10:23 am
Post by: woods170 on 10/03/2018 01:55 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1047428050772811777 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1047428050772811777)
Exactly the one thing NASA was warned about for the past two years by both GAO (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42333.msg1643115#msg1643115) and ASAP: the CCP providers are (almost) ready to fly their hardware but NASA is behind on paperwork.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/04/2018 08:54 pm
Edit to add:
Quote
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Target Test Flight Dates
SpaceX's Crew Dragon and Boeing's Starliner will transport astronauts to the International Space Station.The next generation of American spacecraft and rockets that will launch astronauts to the International Space Station are nearing the final stages of development and evaluation. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program will return human spaceflight launches to U.S. soil, providing safe, reliable and cost-effective access to low-Earth orbit on systems that meet our safety and mission requirements. To meet NASA’s requirements, the commercial providers must demonstrate that their systems are ready to begin regular flights to the space station. Two of those demonstrations are uncrewed flight tests, known as Orbital Flight Test for Boeing, and Demo-1 for SpaceX. After the uncrewed flight tests, both companies will execute a flight test with crew prior to being certified by NASA for crew rotation missions. The following reflects the most recent publicly releasable flight planning dates for both providers.
Test Flight Planning Dates:
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): March 2019
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): August 2019
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): January 2019
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): June 2019
Following the test flights, NASA will review the performance data and resolve issues as necessary to certify the systems for operational missions. Boeing, SpaceX and the Commercial Crew Program are actively working to be ready for the operational missions; however, as with all human spaceflight development, learning from each test and adjusting as necessary to reduce risk to the crew may override planning dates.
Anticipated Readiness Dates for Operational Missions:
First operational mission: August 2019
Second operational mission: December 2019
For more information, see https://go.nasa.gov/2QwW3Sd.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2018/10/04/nasas-commercial-crew-program-target-test-flight-dates-4/
Post by: gongora on 10/04/2018 08:56 pm
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2018/10/04/nasas-commercial-crew-program-target-test-flight-dates-4/QuoteTest Flight Planning Dates:
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): January 2019
Post by: Roy_H on 10/06/2018 05:03 pm
Post by: Alexphysics on 10/06/2018 06:09 pm
Do we know why the DM! keeps slipping? I now believe Boeing's crewed Starliner will be first to the ISS because they have always projected a short time between demo and maned flights and SpaceX has to have their in flight abort test.
There's a post on NASA's website about it and if you look at Boeing's dates they're worse than SpaceX.
Post by: Roy_H on 10/06/2018 06:20 pm
Do we know why the DM! keeps slipping? I now believe Boeing's crewed Starliner will be first to the ISS because they have always projected a short time between demo and maned flights and SpaceX has to have their in flight abort test.
There's a post on NASA's website about it and if you look at Boeing's dates they're worse than SpaceX.
I know, I just don't believe SpaceX can retrieve DM1, refurbish it for the in flight abort test, perform the test, and get NASA to sign off on all the data in 6 months. DM2 will slip a lot.
Post by: RonM on 10/06/2018 07:04 pm
Do we know why the DM! keeps slipping? I now believe Boeing's crewed Starliner will be first to the ISS because they have always projected a short time between demo and maned flights and SpaceX has to have their in flight abort test.
There's a post on NASA's website about it and if you look at Boeing's dates they're worse than SpaceX.
I know, I just don't believe SpaceX can retrieve DM1, refurbish it for the in flight abort test, perform the test, and get NASA to sign off on all the data in 6 months. DM2 will slip a lot.
How much refurbishment is needed? It doesn't need to be ready for orbit or reentry. Just fix it up enough for the abort.
Post by: Alexphysics on 10/06/2018 09:33 pm
Do we know why the DM! keeps slipping? I now believe Boeing's crewed Starliner will be first to the ISS because they have always projected a short time between demo and maned flights and SpaceX has to have their in flight abort test.
There's a post on NASA's website about it and if you look at Boeing's dates they're worse than SpaceX.
I know, I just don't believe SpaceX can retrieve DM1, refurbish it for the in flight abort test, perform the test, and get NASA to sign off on all the data in 6 months. DM2 will slip a lot.
No one is making you believe those dates if you don't want to. Just saying that Boeing, in terms of hardware and testing, is way behind SpaceX... more than people think. Apart from that, they also have to do a pad abort test that you seemed to forget on your comment and they have to do that before their crewed mission. I wish the best for both companies but reality is reality and they're behind. Anyways, this topic is not very much related to this thread and mission, maybe it's better placed on the Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis thread.
Post by: Comga on 10/06/2018 11:04 pm
Boeing did a Starliner pad abort years ago.Do we know why the DM! keeps slipping? I now believe Boeing's crewed Starliner will be first to the ISS because they have always projected a short time between demo and maned flights and SpaceX has to have their in flight abort test.
There's a post on NASA's website about it and if you look at Boeing's dates they're worse than SpaceX.
I know, I just don't believe SpaceX can retrieve DM1, refurbish it for the in flight abort test, perform the test, and get NASA to sign off on all the data in 6 months. DM2 will slip a lot.
No one is making you believe those dates if you don't want to. Just saying that Boeing, in terms of hardware and testing, is way behind SpaceX... more than people think. Apart from that, they also have to do a pad abort test that you seemed to forget on your comment and they have to do that before their crewed mission. I wish the best for both companies but reality is reality and they're behind. Anyways, this topic is not very much related to this thread and mission, maybe it's better placed on the Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis thread.
Are they really close committed to another?
Edit: Or are you referring to SpaceX’s in-flight abort that will use the DM-1 capsule?
I certainly share Roy_H’s pessimism.
QG’s signature line asks about Zeno’s paradox which seems so appropriate for Commercial Crew:
Every week or so they check off something that covers 10% of the remaining requirements
And always will....
I really want to see SpaceX fly people!
Post by: Alexphysics on 10/06/2018 11:23 pm
Boeing did a Starliner pad abort years ago.Do we know why the DM! keeps slipping? I now believe Boeing's crewed Starliner will be first to the ISS because they have always projected a short time between demo and maned flights and SpaceX has to have their in flight abort test.
There's a post on NASA's website about it and if you look at Boeing's dates they're worse than SpaceX.
I know, I just don't believe SpaceX can retrieve DM1, refurbish it for the in flight abort test, perform the test, and get NASA to sign off on all the data in 6 months. DM2 will slip a lot.
No one is making you believe those dates if you don't want to. Just saying that Boeing, in terms of hardware and testing, is way behind SpaceX... more than people think. Apart from that, they also have to do a pad abort test that you seemed to forget on your comment and they have to do that before their crewed mission. I wish the best for both companies but reality is reality and they're behind. Anyways, this topic is not very much related to this thread and mission, maybe it's better placed on the Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis thread.
Are they really close committed to another?
Edit: Or are you referring to SpaceX’s in-flight abort that will use the DM-1 capsule?
I certainly share Roy_H’s pessimism.
QG’s signature line asks about Zeno’s paradox which seems so appropriate for Commercial Crew:
Every week or so they check off something that covers 10% of the remaining requirements
And always will....
I really want to see SpaceX fly people!
Nope, Boeing has not done any pad abort test or something like that. They were trying to do it this summer but that leaky valve on one of the abort engines was the cause for the slip and they now plan it on spring next year. You may confused it with SpaceX's pad abort test which happened more than 3 years ago and have tested the escape system many many times on the ground. Only item left is IFA test. Boeing, as I said, goes behind in hardware and testing and more than peole think. Rockets don't fly on papers...
Post by: meekGee on 10/07/2018 12:32 am
Maybe confusing it with Orion?Boeing did a Starliner pad abort years ago.Do we know why the DM! keeps slipping? I now believe Boeing's crewed Starliner will be first to the ISS because they have always projected a short time between demo and maned flights and SpaceX has to have their in flight abort test.
There's a post on NASA's website about it and if you look at Boeing's dates they're worse than SpaceX.
I know, I just don't believe SpaceX can retrieve DM1, refurbish it for the in flight abort test, perform the test, and get NASA to sign off on all the data in 6 months. DM2 will slip a lot.
No one is making you believe those dates if you don't want to. Just saying that Boeing, in terms of hardware and testing, is way behind SpaceX... more than people think. Apart from that, they also have to do a pad abort test that you seemed to forget on your comment and they have to do that before their crewed mission. I wish the best for both companies but reality is reality and they're behind. Anyways, this topic is not very much related to this thread and mission, maybe it's better placed on the Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis thread.
Are they really close committed to another?
Edit: Or are you referring to SpaceX’s in-flight abort that will use the DM-1 capsule?
I certainly share Roy_H’s pessimism.
QG’s signature line asks about Zeno’s paradox which seems so appropriate for Commercial Crew:
Every week or so they check off something that covers 10% of the remaining requirements
And always will....
I really want to see SpaceX fly people!
Nope, Boeing has not done any pad abort test or something like that. They were trying to do it this summer but that leaky valve on one of the abort engines was the cause for the slip and they now plan it on spring next year. You may confused it with SpaceX's pad abort test which happened more than 3 years ago and have tested the escape system many many times on the ground. Only item left is IFA test. Boeing, as I said, goes behind in hardware and testing and more than peole think. Rockets don't fly on papers...
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Post by: Comga on 10/07/2018 04:55 am
Maybe confusing it with Orion?That was probably it.
My apologies.
Carry on
Post by: meekGee on 10/07/2018 06:13 am
Too many vehicles, not enough flights, easy to mix them up...Maybe confusing it with Orion?That was probably it.
My apologies.
Carry on
"You know, the one that's been in development since my kid was in middle school"...
"sorry you'll have to be more specific"
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Post by: rpapo on 10/07/2018 11:26 pm
Too many vehicles, not enough flights, easy to mix them up...But that's sure a nice problem to have.
Post by: woods170 on 10/08/2018 06:58 am
Too many vehicles, not enough flights, easy to mix them up...But that's sure a nice problem to have.
The first part is. The second part is not.
Post by: woods170 on 10/08/2018 07:06 am
Maybe confusing it with Orion?That was probably it.
My apologies.
Carry on
Overview of performed and planned abort tests, per vehicle:
Orion:
- Pad abort test (PA-1). Was performed on May 6, 2010.
- In-flight abort test (Ascent Abort test - AA-2). Planned for April, 2019
Crew Dragon:
- Pad abort test. Was performed on May 6, 2015. (Exactly 5 years to the day after Orion's PA-1)
- In-flight abort test. Planned for March/April 2019.
CST-100 Starliner
- Pad abort test. Was planned for June/July 2019. However, the vehicle's service module suffered a mishap during a hotfire-test (prior to the actual pad abort test), requiring re-design of abort propellant valves. New planning date TBD.
- No in-flight abort test will be performed for Starliner.
Post by: crandles57 on 10/08/2018 11:28 am
Crew Dragon:
- In-flight abort test. Planned for March/April 2019.
Last I saw was
Quote
Lueders said Friday that the Demo-2 crew test flight will be preceded by about a month by an in-flight abort demonstrationhttps://spaceflightnow.com/2018/08/09/nasa-signs-off-on-spacexs-load-and-go-procedure-for-crew-launches/
dated Aug 9,2018
and with
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): June 2019 per Oct 4 CCP dates
I would say in-flight abort test is unlikely to be before May 2019 but perhaps 'March/April 2019' is still plausible (potentially last slippage could be increase in time between abort test and DM1).
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/11/2018 10:23 am
Post by: AbuSimbel on 10/11/2018 10:44 am
With today's launch abort on Soyuz MS-10 and the previous as-yet-unexplained 'sabotage' on Soyuz MS-09, I have the feeling that these bottlenecks, delays and other problems are no longer going to be acceptable to the Administrator. I expect a few fires lit under a few feet and pressure to get the launch schedule both for Dragon-2 and for Starliner trending leftwards on a dramatic scale.
How so with a limited crew on the ISS (or even no crew)?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/11/2018 11:06 am
How so with a limited crew on the ISS (or even no crew)?
To end the 'no crew' issue as swiftly and as reliably as possible.
It may be necessary to vary some of the missions (maybe using a recycled and modified Cargo Dragon as a docking target for DM2) before sending a recovery crew to the ISS.
This is all assuming that Soyuz has an indefinite stand-down and I suspect that these plans will be crystallising even as we speak as a contingency. I hope that long-term stand down doesn't happen but, even if it doesn't, I think that the recent Soyuz issues would make everyone more comfortable if Commercial Crew was operational sooner rather than later.
Post by: AbuSimbel on 10/11/2018 11:13 am
If that's the case having it launch as soon as possible, before the crew may be forced to come back is a no-brainer.
Post by: woods170 on 10/11/2018 12:02 pm
I suppose we will see if DM-1 was really delayed just because of ISS scheduling issues.
If that's the case having it launch as soon as possible, before the crew may be forced to come back is a no-brainer.
How so? Launching DM-1 ASAP doesn't solve the problem of a Soyuz stand-down because it doesn't necessarily speed up DM-2 .
Post by: Nightstalker89 on 10/11/2018 12:10 pm
Post by: AbuSimbel on 10/11/2018 12:19 pm
I suppose we will see if DM-1 was really delayed just because of ISS scheduling issues.
If that's the case having it launch as soon as possible, before the crew may be forced to come back is a no-brainer.
How so? Launching DM-1 ASAP doesn't solve the problem of a Soyuz stand-down because it doesn't necessarily speed up DM-2 .
To me the Soyuz stand down for this particular accident is the just the tip of the iceberg. It's more and more clear that the russian space program has growing QC issues and I think NASA (and the Congress) will want to have their new carefully scrutinized, safety oriented vehicles ready to replace Soyuz as soon as possible.
Launching DM-1 as soon as possible doesn't necessarily speed up DM-2, but not launching it necessarily delays crewed flights.
Post by: clongton on 10/11/2018 01:50 pm
What happened this morning is a Russian problem. They have the resources to mitigate the problem and will likely at least fly an empty MS-11 to the station to replace MS-09 before its expiration date. That is, of course, the Russians determine the problem quickly and learn that it is an easy fix which also satisfies NASA.
Post by: woods170 on 10/11/2018 02:00 pm
Trying to move DM-1 and 2 schedules to the left isn't going to happen. What will happen is the Administrator will have a conversation with SpaceX and Boeing about making sure there are no more delays.
What happened this morning is a Russian problem. They have the resources to mitigate the problem and will likely at least fly an empty MS-11 to the station to replace MS-09 before its expiration date. That is, of course, the Russians determine the problem quickly and learn that it is an easy fix which also satisfies NASA.
Emphasis mine.
More like SpaceX and Boeing having a conversation with the Administrator to make clear that a mountain of review
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/11/2018 02:03 pm
Post by: gongora on 10/11/2018 02:03 pm
Post by: wjbarnett on 10/11/2018 02:04 pm
Post by: clongton on 10/11/2018 04:14 pm
The Implications of Soyuz MS-10 launch failure on ISS, crew rotation,Commercial Crew (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46541.0) thread might be a more appropriate place for today's discussions.
Bumping this post.
Hoping more people see it and take heed.
Post by: theinternetftw on 10/17/2018 08:19 am
Quote
I also talked with a guy from Boeing for a bit, including talking about SpaceX. He said that he thinks that SpaceX will reach the ISS first, with their uncrewed demo mission, but that they will not dock, due to not all paperwork being done, and NASA not allowing them to dock, and that while they do paperwork, Boeing will reach the station first with humans on board.
That's, um, pretty specific.
Post by: jpo234 on 10/17/2018 08:28 am
Interesting talk coming from a Boeing employee at IAC. Here's a snippet from a report by a reddit user who went to the conference: (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/9kzbng/rspacex_discusses_october_2018_49/e7vgb0i/)Isn't DM-1 a NASA mission? Why would NASA launch a mission that it knows will not accomplish all the desired results?QuoteI also talked with a guy from Boeing for a bit, including talking about SpaceX. He said that he thinks that SpaceX will reach the ISS first, with their uncrewed demo mission, but that they will not dock, due to not all paperwork being done, and NASA not allowing them to dock, and that while they do paperwork, Boeing will reach the station first with humans on board.That's, um, pretty specific.
Post by: woods170 on 10/17/2018 12:03 pm
Interesting talk coming from a Boeing employee at IAC. Here's a snippet from a report by a reddit user who went to the conference: (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/9kzbng/rspacex_discusses_october_2018_49/e7vgb0i/)Isn't DM-1 a NASA mission? Why would NASA launch a mission that it knows will not accomplish all the desired results?QuoteI also talked with a guy from Boeing for a bit, including talking about SpaceX. He said that he thinks that SpaceX will reach the ISS first, with their uncrewed demo mission, but that they will not dock, due to not all paperwork being done, and NASA not allowing them to dock, and that while they do paperwork, Boeing will reach the station first with humans on board.That's, um, pretty specific.
DM-1 is a CCP mission. And NASA would not allow it to launch when it doesn't stand a chance to accomplish all mission objectives, such as docking.
It would be a complete waste of the mission.
IMO, the quoted Boeing employee did some substantial "wishful thinking".
Post by: woods170 on 10/17/2018 12:24 pm
Interesting talk coming from a Boeing employee at IAC. Here's a snippet from a report by a reddit user who went to the conference: (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/9kzbng/rspacex_discusses_october_2018_49/e7vgb0i/)QuoteI also talked with a guy from Boeing for a bit, including talking about SpaceX. He said that he thinks that SpaceX will reach the ISS first, with their uncrewed demo mission, but that they will not dock, due to not all paperwork being done, and NASA not allowing them to dock, and that while they do paperwork, Boeing will reach the station first with humans on board.
That's, um, pretty specific.
Wishful thinking on part of the Boeing employee and loaded with (incorrect) assumptions.
From the same Reddit thread the same user mentioned the arguments the Boeing employee used to support his wishful thinking:
Quote
He mentioned SpaceX launching on the same day as they got the faa license (was Iridium 1) (against industry practices). them having only recently installed the CAA (might not be ready yet) and really early launch abort test (to catch media attention).
This goes to show just how out-of-touch-with-reality this supposed Boeing employee is. Just another s*cker who can't get his head around the fact that SpaceX does things very different from the rest of the industry.
1. Launching on the same day as getting the FAA license is not agains the law.
2. Just In Time (JIT) availability of the CAA is common to the way SpaceX is operating (based on Agile practices used in the IT industry).
3. Early launch abort test (which was in fact almost 2 years AFTER the originally planned date btw) is again common to the way SpaceX is operating (fail early to learn soonest - this is again based on Agile practices used in the IT industry).
The basic problem with this supposed Boeing employee is that he assumes that everybody in his industry must do the same things in the same way. And that is a massively stupid assumption on his part.
Post by: gongora on 10/17/2018 02:04 pm
Post by: Roy_H on 10/25/2018 04:42 pm
Post by: gongora on 10/25/2018 05:07 pm
There was a discussion a while back about the parachute cutters (releasing the parachute I think) on DM1 being manufactured by the same company as cargo versions but the crew versions starting with DM2 will be by a different manufacturer. There was some speculation that these would be changed out on DM1 to be the new manufacturer version. Was this done?
I haven't heard any further news on it, but the cutters were for the reefing lines on the parachutes.
Post by: gongora on 10/25/2018 07:09 pm
1829-EX-ST-2018 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=88022&RequestTimeout=1000) Launch from 39A NET Dec. 10, 2018
1831-EX-ST-2018 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=88025&RequestTimeout=1000) ASDS Landing
North 31 43 23 West 76 58 47
These appear to be the launch and landing communications permits for DM-1. The date is very much a NET, I would still expect January.
Post by: Scylla on 10/27/2018 12:41 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/29/2018 02:07 pm
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/10/commercial-crew-training-prepares-flight-hardware/ - By Thomas Burghardt
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1056924799447064578
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/08/2018 02:43 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjpAep8BWMw
Post by: biosehnsucht on 11/08/2018 10:37 pm
Post by: Tomness on 11/08/2018 10:43 pm
Which I take to mean almost certainly not launching before 2019.. :(Fit Checks with Crew Dragon & F9. This thread has said its been January for awhile b/c ISS Vehicle Visition Schedule, Elon & Gwyne have said the Hardware would be ready by End Of Year. With Soyuz mishap just push every thing back.
Post by: Alexphysics on 11/08/2018 11:01 pm
Which I take to mean almost certainly not launching before 2019.. :(Fit Checks with Crew Dragon & F9. This thread has said its been January for awhile b/c ISS Vehicle Visition Schedule, Elon & Gwyne have said the Hardware would be ready by End Of Year. With Soyuz mishap just push every thing back.
Let's not forget we saw a FH on the pad in 2017 even though the launch was a month or so later. This obviously won't be the same in that sense but I'm leaned to think she refered to fit checks or even the static fire for DM-1 before this year ends which I'm sure it could be done.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/09/2018 06:16 pm
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1060973553414275072
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/14/2018 04:32 pm
Jan 8, 2019 is the current placeholder per the L2 side.
NASA now saying something similar publicly:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1062738385884905472
Post by: litton4 on 11/16/2018 10:28 am
It it just an illusion, or will they remove that top part of the TEL for crew Dragon launches?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsC5afDVYAAggPV.jpg)
Post by: kevinof on 11/16/2018 11:40 am
Looking at this picture from the Es'hail launch - doe it look like the crew arm doesn't clear the top of the TEL?
It it just an illusion, or will they remove that top part of the TEL for crew Dragon launches?
Post by: woods170 on 11/16/2018 12:26 pm
I'm sure SpaceX know how to measure the height of the arm, and no they will not remove anything from the TEL.Looking at this picture from the Es'hail launch - doe it look like the crew arm doesn't clear the top of the TEL?
It it just an illusion, or will they remove that top part of the TEL for crew Dragon launches?
<snipped the image>
The top part of the TEL, holding the deployable support for the fairing, is removable. And yes, it will be removed from the TEL for Crew Dragon missions.
It is a fairly simple reconfiguration of the TEL for different missions.
Post by: kevinof on 11/16/2018 12:27 pm
I'm sure SpaceX know how to measure the height of the arm, and no they will not remove anything from the TEL.Looking at this picture from the Es'hail launch - doe it look like the crew arm doesn't clear the top of the TEL?
It it just an illusion, or will they remove that top part of the TEL for crew Dragon launches?
The top part of the TEL, holding the deployable support for the fairing, is removable. And yes, it will be removed from the TEL for Crew Dragon missions.
It is a fairly simple reconfiguration of the TEL for different missions.
Post by: Alexphysics on 11/16/2018 12:29 pm
Looking at this picture from the Es'hail launch - doe it look like the crew arm doesn't clear the top of the TEL?
It it just an illusion, or will they remove that top part of the TEL for crew Dragon launches?
It clears the strongback nicely, it's just the perspective from that point of view. L2 has better pictures so you know what you have to do ;)
Post by: litton4 on 11/16/2018 01:49 pm
Looking at this picture from the Es'hail launch - doe it look like the crew arm doesn't clear the top of the TEL?
It it just an illusion, or will they remove that top part of the TEL for crew Dragon launches?
<Image removed>
It clears the strongback nicely, it's just the perspective from that point of view. L2 has better pictures so you know what you have to do ;)
Already a lifetime member of L2 ;)
There are other pictures that appear to have been taken from further away showing the same disparity in height.
However, others have answered stating that the top section is removable.
Post by: jacqmans on 11/17/2018 10:39 am
The team at SpaceX's rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas completed a static fire test of the Falcon 9 booster that will launch SpaceX's first demonstration mission for NASA's Commerical Crew Program.
Photo Credit: SpaceX
Post by: Comga on 11/17/2018 08:18 pm
We have the NET launch date (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1702572#msg1702572) for DM-1 as Jan 8.
If one applies the 5.02 deg/day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodal_precession#Equation) precession of the ISS orbit, the ascending orbit passes over the Cape at 1:55 AM, after midnight local time, on Jan 8.
This would be an anticipated liftoff time IF the rendezvous has the same three day chase that has been used for Cargo Dragon.
Do we have any information on whether or not this will be the case?
Post by: Tomness on 11/17/2018 11:22 pm
CRS SpX-16 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45881.0) is currently scheduled for 2018-12-04 13:38.You would think they would do the 6 hour rendezvous but that might be enough for Shakedown mission. So two day will have to do. They haven't said what kinda rendezvous commerical crew will be able to do.
We have the NET launch date (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1702572#msg1702572) for DM-1 as Jan 8.
If one applies the 5.02 deg/day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodal_precession#Equation) precession of the ISS orbit, the ascending orbit passes over the Cape at 1:55 AM, after midnight local time, on Jan 8.
This would be an anticipated liftoff time IF the rendezvous has the same three day chase that has been used for Cargo Dragon.
Do we have any information on whether or not this will be the case?
Post by: Mammutti on 11/21/2018 02:23 pm
Quote
Test Flight Planning Dates:
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): March 2019
Boeing Pad Abort Test: Between OFT and CFT
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): August 2019
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): January 7, 2019
SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test: Between Demo-1 and Demo-2
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): June 2019
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2018/11/21/nasas-commercial-crew-program-target-test-flight-dates-5/
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/21/2018 02:23 pm
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1065264257145729026
DM-1 now NET Jan 7.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/21/2018 02:31 pm
Post by: jacqmans on 11/21/2018 02:33 pm
MEDIA ADVISORY M18-175
NASA Invites Media to the SpaceX Demo-1 Launch
Media accreditation is open for SpaceX’s Demo-1 uncrewed flight test to the International Space Stationas part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon spacecraft is targeted for Jan. 7, 2019, from historic Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
This will be the first uncrewed test flight of the Commercial Crew Program and will provide data on the performance of the Falcon 9 rocket, Crew Dragon spacecraft, and ground systems, as well as on-orbit, docking and landing operations. The flight test also will provide valuable data toward NASA certifying SpaceX’s crew transportation system for carrying astronauts to and from the space station.
Media prelaunch and launch activities will take place at Kennedy.
Media accreditation deadlines are as follows:
International media without U.S. citizenship must apply by 4 p.m. EST Friday, Dec. 7, for access to Kennedy media activities.
U.S. media must apply by 4 p.m. Friday, Dec. 21.
All accreditation requests should be submitted online at:
https://media.ksc.nasa.gov
For questions about accreditation, please email [email protected]. For other questions, contact Kennedy’s newsroom at 321-867-2468.
Reporters with special logistics requests for Kennedy, such as space for satellite trucks, trailers, tents, electrical connections or work spaces, must contact Tiffany Fairley ([email protected]) by Friday, Dec 7.
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is working with the American aerospace industry through a public-private partnership to launch astronauts on American rockets and spacecraft from American soil for the first time since 2011. The goal of the program is safe, reliable and cost-effective transportation to and from the International Space Station, which could allow for additional research time and increase the opportunity for discovery aboard humanity’s testbed for exploration.
For launch countdown coverage, NASA's launch blog, and more information about the mission, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/21/2018 02:36 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/21/2018 03:39 pm
(Image: GoISSWatch)
Post by: Joffan on 11/21/2018 06:27 pm
SpaceX render in the presser:I would have expected the access arm to swing further away than that illustration suggests.
I like the way that the condensation clouds down the side of the vehicle gently leave ambiguous whether the booster is new.
Post by: ugordan on 11/21/2018 06:49 pm
And people were worried about the program being delayed.
Uncrewed launch =/= crewed launch.
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/22/2018 04:35 am
SpaceX render in the presser:I would have expected the access arm to swing further away than that illustration suggests.
<snip>
Maybe the access arm is position so that in event of contingencies the arm can swing back to the Dragon for emergency crew egress..
Post by: OneSpeed on 11/22/2018 06:43 am
SpaceX render in the presser:
The same image at 4K. Mr Turner would have been proud.
Post by: deruch on 11/22/2018 07:12 am
SpaceX render in the presser:
For a second there I was pretty shocked, it really looked to me like SpaceX was changing the Dragon 2's livery to a metallic blue and black color scheme. But it was just a trick of the sky coloring and the blue solar panels on the trunk. But now I really want to see a rendering of Dragon in either Tesla's Multicoat Red or Signature Red.
Post by: Thorny on 11/22/2018 03:06 pm
Maybe the access arm is position so that in event of contingencies the arm can swing back to the Dragon for emergency crew egress..
It could also still be in motion in this rendering. By the time the F9 clears the tower, it may be fully retracted to the other side of the tower.
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/22/2018 06:45 pm
Maybe the access arm is position so that in event of contingencies the arm can swing back to the Dragon for emergency crew egress..
It could also still be in motion in this rendering. By the time the F9 clears the tower, it may be fully retracted to the other side of the tower.
It probably has to be retracted prior to fueling for aborts. That would be a really slow retraction.
edit: Maybe it holds slightly off for abort access and quicker reconnection if that is ever needed.
Post by: Senex on 11/22/2018 08:06 pm
Maybe the access arm is position so that in event of contingencies the arm can swing back to the Dragon for emergency crew egress..
It could also still be in motion in this rendering. By the time the F9 clears the tower, it may be fully retracted to the other side of the tower.
It probably has to be retracted prior to fueling for aborts. That would be a really slow retraction.
edit: Maybe it holds slightly off for abort access and quicker reconnection if that is ever needed.
And maybe it's just a painting . . . by an artist . . . who "just made it up" . . . and we're overthinking it . . . as usual . . . ;)
Post by: crandles57 on 11/23/2018 03:13 pm
Launch time roughly worked out to be 23:55 EST on 7 January, 0455 UTC on 8 January based on known Falcon 9 orbital insertion/Dragon phasing abilities and ISS ground track.
Quote
January 7 at the earliest, at 11:57pm EST if that day.per launch photography
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
2 min is good enough for 'rough work' ;)
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/23/2018 03:31 pm
Launch time roughly worked out to be 23:55 EST on 7 January, 0455 UTC on 8 January based on known Falcon 9 orbital insertion/Dragon phasing abilities and ISS ground track.QuoteJanuary 7 at the earliest, at 11:57pm EST if that day.per launch photography
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
2 min is good enough for 'rough work' ;)
Excellent. And that would actually make 23:55 EST the opening of the 5min window as F9s w/ Dragons always target the dead-center of the 5min window for phasing requirements. So that all matches wonderfully.
Post by: Comga on 11/23/2018 06:39 pm
Launch time roughly worked out to be 23:55 EST on 7 January, 0455 UTC on 8 January based on known Falcon 9 orbital insertion/Dragon phasing abilities and ISS ground track.QuoteJanuary 7 at the earliest, at 11:57pm EST if that day.per launch photography
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html (http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html)
2 min is good enough for 'rough work' ;)
Excellent. And that would actually make 23:55 EST the opening of the 5min window as F9s w/ Dragons always target the dead-center of the 5min window for phasing requirements. So that all matches wonderfully.
Ah
Launch Photography says
Quote
The launch time gets 22-25 minutes earlier each day.My calculation, based on a printed 5.02 deg/day orbital precession, was 20.08 min/day. Hence the discrepancy.
Should have derived the values from first principles
This is a "better" result, as in easier to observe than 2 in the morning.
edit: First principles don't help. Drops to 4.48 deg/day for current 405 km altitude, instead of increasing to "launch photography" value.
Calculation still says ~2 AM launch.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/25/2018 05:07 pm
Edit to add: Are these the sort of caveats that apply to any ISS mission, such as CRS?
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 11/25/2018 05:16 pm
How DM-1 differs from the standard CRS mission is something probably NASA personnel could only answer.
Post by: Michael Baylor on 11/29/2018 09:35 pm
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/29/nasa-program-send-astronauts-space-station-facing-more-delays/2143813002/
Post by: programmerdan on 11/29/2018 09:40 pm
Bridenstine says that "there is a very low probability" that DM-1 occurs in January.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/29/nasa-program-send-astronauts-space-station-facing-more-delays/2143813002/
:soundless screaming into the void:
Post by: TorenAltair on 11/29/2018 10:03 pm
Post by: kevinof on 11/29/2018 10:07 pm
Are they too afraid to fly? Or is it "trying to get as many fingerprints on the murder weapon as possible" as they say.
Bridenstine says that "there is a very low probability" that DM-1 occurs in January.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/29/nasa-program-send-astronauts-space-station-facing-more-delays/2143813002/
:soundless screaming into the void:
Post by: rockets4life97 on 11/29/2018 10:09 pm
Post by: Charlie Beran on 11/29/2018 10:23 pm
Boeing will go first. You can count on it.
Really sad if NASA is indeed doing every thing they can (to the detriment of SpaceX) to help Boeing fly crew first.
Post by: Kansan52 on 11/29/2018 11:08 pm
Post by: joek on 11/29/2018 11:34 pm
They should cancel the whole contract. Offer transportation as is, take it NASA or leave it but don't play those games.
NASA would most likely leave it and continue with Boeing--and SpaceX would be out significant in-plan $ due to defaulting on in-progress and future milestones and payments. (And likely claw-back of any CCtCap progress payments.)
Trying to arm-twist or threaten your customer when there is a competitor ready and willing to fill your shoes (that would be Boeing) is stupid--unless it cost more to continue than stop. Which I seriously doubt.
Be assured that if there is a delay or change due to NASA or other USG actions outside the control of the contractor, NASA will pay (as unfortunately will the US taxpayer). FAR contracting cuts both ways.
Post by: ulm_atms on 11/29/2018 11:39 pm
If this is a PR thing as a lot of people think....well...Elon has his own PR department....himself.
Sorry if this sounds rant'ish...but I can't fathom the delays after delays for "safety" and other things and then pile into a capsule/rocket that has had two issues in a row. And for the kicker....DM-1 HAS NO CREW!!! So the safety notion is out the window for this delay. My notion is that NASA can't get out of NASA's way either politically or other.
:-X
Post by: ulm_atms on 11/29/2018 11:46 pm
I have looked but cannot find....
What happens if DM-1 fails it's tests?
Does SpaceX have to re-fly on their own dime? Does NASA pay some/all?
I know they won't fly the crew mission unless it passes all objectives. Just curious. If it has been posted, just point me to it.
EDIT:Spelling
Post by: clongton on 11/29/2018 11:52 pm
Quote
The administrator attributed the delay to challenges with several components, including landing parachutes.
Haven't the parachutes already been tested and certified?
Post by: joek on 11/29/2018 11:59 pm
I consider this one of the times that Elon should send a tweet as to what the heck is going on (if possible, all though I can't see why not currently unless he is afraid to piss off NASA by making them look bad).
A tweet is fundamentally no different than a press release. You don't issue random press releases that impact customers without their involvement. It's called "being a good partner"; it's part of doing business, and has been since the stone age.
Quote
Sorry if this sounds rant'ish...but I can't fathom the delays after delays for "safety" and other things and then pile into a capsule/rocket that has had two issues in a row. And for the kicker....DM-1 HAS NO CREW!!! So the safety notion is out the window for this delay. My notion is that NASA can't get out of NASA's way either politically or other.
A more disciplined examination of what DM-1 is intended to accomplish and demonstrate might be in order. It is intended to demonstrate key aspects required for safe transport of crew and docking with ISS. The fact that it has no crew is irrelevant to the goal of demonstrating a safe system.
Post by: joek on 11/30/2018 12:09 am
QuoteThe administrator attributed the delay to challenges with several components, including landing parachutes.Haven't the parachutes already been tested and certified?
As far as I can tell, they have tested (the new 4-chute system) repeatedly over the last many months. It is still unclear whether NASA has "certified". Based on this information, presumably not. NASA's certification or exit criteria is not public knowledge (we have very little visibility into the CCtCap contract changes-amendments) so it's anyone's guess as to what is required to close-certify.
Post by: kdhilliard on 11/30/2018 12:14 am
QuoteThe administrator attributed the delay to challenges with several components, including landing parachutes.Haven't the parachutes already been tested and certified?
Here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1866521#msg1866521) [Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread] is our discussion of the October 11 NASA ASAP meeting in which the parachute issue (among others) were raised, and here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1866852#msg1866852) is woods170 rebuttal to the seriousness of the issues based on information from his contacts.
2018-10-11 ASAP Public Meeting Transcript (https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Fourth_Quarterly_2018_Public_Meeting_Minutes_TAGGED.pdf) Pg. 2:
Quote
recent parachute testing, both during the CCP qualification (qual) testing regimen and with some anomalies witnessed in the resupply contract (also handled by SpaceX), show difficulties and problems with parachute designs. Clearly, crew cannot be risked without complete confidence in the parachute design. It is an integral part of capsule return for both providers and a crucial element of crew safety.
Dr. McErlean noted that there has always been a Program requirement that before Demo-2 (the first crewed launch), there must be an uncrewed flight test of all the critical systems that are scheduled as “risk mitigations” for crewed flight. The parachute system is one of those. Whether or not investigation of the recent parachute anomalies results in redesign, it is the Panel’s view that the parachute system used in the uncrewed flight test must be the same as that used in the crewed flight test. Redesign drives regression testing, additional qual testing, and flight testing, which can clearly lead to schedule impact.
Edit: Added link to woods170's rebuttal and expanded ASAP quote.
Post by: joek on 11/30/2018 12:21 am
...
I have looked but cannot find....
What happens if DM-1 fails it's tests?
Does SpaceX have to re-fly on their own dime? Does NASA pay some/all?
I know they won't fly the crew mission unless it passes all objectives. Just curious. If it has been posted, just point me to it.
You won't easily find that information; it is not in the public record (i.e., CCtCap contract or amendments). But, based on similar contracts... It depends. Would they have to re-fly start-to-finish? Likely not. Would they have to demonstrate that they had a risk treatment plan for any failures? Definitely yes. Would they have to re-fly to demonstrate the risk treatment plan was effective? Maybe. Who would pay for it? Depends. LV blew up on the pad or in flight? Likely the contractor. Failure to dock at the ISS due to an integration issue, likely a bit of contribution from both NASA and the contractor.
Post by: clongton on 11/30/2018 12:25 am
2018-10-11 ASAP Public Meeting Transcript (https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Fourth_Quarterly_2018_Public_Meeting_Minutes_TAGGED.pdf) Pg. 2:Quoterecent parachute testing, both during the CCP qualification (qual) testing regimen and with some anomalies witnessed in the resupply contract (also handled by SpaceX), show difficulties and problems with parachute designs. Clearly, crew cannot be risked without complete confidence in the parachute design. It is an integral part of capsule return for both providers and a crucial element of crew safety.
Thank you. IMO that is a valid reason to delay the flight of DM-1. It has nothing to do with trying to set up Boeing to fly first (conspiracy theory). If SpaceX has anomalies with parachutes, even on Cargo Dragon, I agree these need to be adjudicated before crew risks their lives on them. Because DM-2 will be crewed, DM-1 is the correct vehicle to demonstrate the anomaly mitigation. Delay the flight, install the mitigated systems and only then should it fly.
Post by: cppetrie on 11/30/2018 12:39 am
Except that we have been told by those in the know that the anomalies were within the design parameters and still provided adequate margin per the design. So this seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. No system can be perfectly modeled or predicted so to build a parachute system that operates exactly as modeled every time is wholly unrealistic. That is why adequate margin is built into the design to account for small variability within the design parameters.
2018-10-11 ASAP Public Meeting Transcript (https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Fourth_Quarterly_2018_Public_Meeting_Minutes_TAGGED.pdf) Pg. 2:Quoterecent parachute testing, both during the CCP qualification (qual) testing regimen and with some anomalies witnessed in the resupply contract (also handled by SpaceX), show difficulties and problems with parachute designs. Clearly, crew cannot be risked without complete confidence in the parachute design. It is an integral part of capsule return for both providers and a crucial element of crew safety.
Thank you. IMO that is a valid reason to delay the flight of DM-1. It has nothing to do with trying to set up Boeing to fly first (conspiracy theory). If SpaceX has anomalies with parachutes, even on Cargo Dragon, I agree these need to be adjudicated before crew risks their lives on them. Because DM-2 will be crewed, DM-1 is the correct vehicle to demonstrate the anomaly mitigation. Delay the flight, install the mitigated systems and only then should it fly.
Post by: ulm_atms on 11/30/2018 12:43 am
I consider this one of the times that Elon should send a tweet as to what the heck is going on (if possible, all though I can't see why not currently unless he is afraid to piss off NASA by making them look bad).
A tweet is fundamentally no different than a press release. You don't issue random press releases that impact customers without their involvement. It's called "being a good partner"; it's part of doing business, and has been since the stone age.QuoteSorry if this sounds rant'ish...but I can't fathom the delays after delays for "safety" and other things and then pile into a capsule/rocket that has had two issues in a row. And for the kicker....DM-1 HAS NO CREW!!! So the safety notion is out the window for this delay. My notion is that NASA can't get out of NASA's way either politically or other.
A more disciplined examination of what DM-1 is intended to accomplish and demonstrate might be in order. It is intended to demonstrate key aspects required for safe transport of crew and docking with ISS. The fact that it has no crew is irrelevant to the goal of demonstrating a safe system.
I didn't say for Elon to go "@$^$ing NASA can't do anything right and the delays are because of that!!!" But, why can't he say "The reason for the delay is because NASA thinks X and we need to work on Y" It's NASA putting out all the info about safety reviews and DM-1 delays(or at least Bridenstine..anyone else from NASA say anything?)....and not one single iota from SpaceX. It's not like them to be quite while everyone else is talking about them...they are a very "public" company.
And DM-1 is to demonstrate the safety of SpaceX's version of crew transport and make sure everything is ready for crew. But constantly pushing back the test only causes us to continue to rely on a single vehicle that's safety record seems to be going in the wrong direction.
But politically....SpaceX is bad and needs to go away....that's what all of this feels like. That's why I find it weird that only Bridenstine is saying things and that he seems to not be on the same page as the rest of NASA.
2018-10-11 ASAP Public Meeting Transcript (https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Fourth_Quarterly_2018_Public_Meeting_Minutes_TAGGED.pdf) Pg. 2:Quoterecent parachute testing, both during the CCP qualification (qual) testing regimen and with some anomalies witnessed in the resupply contract (also handled by SpaceX), show difficulties and problems with parachute designs. Clearly, crew cannot be risked without complete confidence in the parachute design. It is an integral part of capsule return for both providers and a crucial element of crew safety.
Thank you. IMO that is a valid reason to delay the flight of DM-1. It has nothing to do with trying to set up Boeing to fly first (conspiracy theory). If SpaceX has anomalies with parachutes, even on Cargo Dragon, I agree these need to be adjudicated before crew risks their lives on them. Because DM-2 will be crewed, DM-1 is the correct vehicle to demonstrate the anomaly mitigation. Delay the flight, install the mitigated systems and only then should it fly.
I thought the tests showed some anomalies but were within tolerance? What's the point of having a tolerance threshold if you are unhappy if something is within it?
Look, I'm not saying we should just say, screw it, lets go regardless. Too much is riding on both companies doing it right the first time(SpaceX more I feel). I am against political issues causing delays however. It's just weird that SpaceX is not saying anything and NASA everything.
Post by: Michael Baylor on 11/30/2018 12:54 am
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1866852#msg1866852
Post by: joek on 11/30/2018 01:35 am
I didn't say for Elon to go "@$^$ing NASA can't do anything right and the delays are because of that!!!" But, why can't he say "The reason for the delay is because NASA thinks X and we need to work on Y" It's NASA putting out all the info about safety reviews and DM-1 delays(or at least Bridenstine..anyone else from NASA say anything?)....and not one single iota from SpaceX. It's not like them to be quite while everyone else is talking about them...they are a very "public" company.
Did not suggest Elon would go gangster on NASA. In any case, NASA is the customer. You don't go around the customer. Ever. It's bad for business. We have seen this before; nothing unusual for SpaceX to be circumspect when a customer is involved.[1] No idea where you are getting the impression that it is "not like them"; SpaceX is doing exactly what they have always done--and what they should do--when a customer is involved: let the customer lead.
Quote
But politically....SpaceX is bad and needs to go away....that's what all of this feels like. That's why I find it weird that only Bridenstine is saying things and that he seems to not be on the same page as the rest of NASA.
Bridenstine is head of a key SpaceX customer. No more of an oddity than SpaceX deferring to any other customer for communications to the public about their mission or payload. Nothing weird or nefarious about it. What is Bridenstine saying that "seems to not be on the same page as the rest of NASA"?
[1] edit: Only time we have seen an inkling of SpaceX stepping outside that circle was Shotwell's very brief and focused statement regarding SpaceX's LV performance on the Zuma mission. Shotwell was careful to walk a very fine line and address only SpaceX's LV part of the equation; not the customer-payload aspects.
Post by: joek on 11/30/2018 01:39 am
Except that we have been told by those in the know that the anomalies were within the design parameters and still provided adequate margin per the design. ...
Unless you cannot explain the anomalies. In which case, you better go back and figure out how to explain those anomalies so that some unknown does not come back and bite you in the a**.
edit: And let's differentiate between "anomaly" and "within the error bars". The former suggests an unexpected and unexplained behavior; the latter suggests behavior within modeled-predicted behaviors. If we have an anomaly that needs to be addressed. If the behavior is within modeled-predicted behaviors, then you may be correct in suggesting this is a canard.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/30/2018 01:39 am
...My notion is that NASA can't get out of NASA's way either politically or other.
Obviously, NASP, X-33, X-34 that stupid single stick solid for Orion and the never ending development, but no flight of SLS.
NASA needs to contract services and get out of the way, they'd be 10 times further ahead and actually put humans somewhere.
Dragon V2 will fly, we're close, best get it right and maybe they'll have a back log of vehicles ready to go.
Post by: vt_hokie on 11/30/2018 01:58 am
Post by: Zpoxy on 11/30/2018 02:19 am
I have searched for images or video of the Crew Dragon at KSC, but apparently SpaceX hasn't released anything since the thermal vac photos from Ohio. Any ideas on the current state of the vehicle? I assume it's essentially in a clean room environment with little work being done to it at the moment, with all interior components and flight software in place, but waiting on things like parachute installment. I was hoping we might see some pre-mission PR footage of processing, roll out to the pad, etc. but I guess that'll depend on this latest news.
Here you go:
https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/180712-spacex-768x768.jpg
Post by: vt_hokie on 11/30/2018 02:27 am
Post by: zodiacchris on 11/30/2018 03:49 am
Post by: woods170 on 11/30/2018 06:31 am
QuoteThe administrator attributed the delay to challenges with several components, including landing parachutes.
Haven't the parachutes already been tested and certified?
Tested: Yes.
Certified: No.
Post by: woods170 on 11/30/2018 06:46 am
Except that we have been told by those in the know that the anomalies were within the design parameters and still provided adequate margin per the design. ...
Unless you cannot explain the anomalies. In which case, you better go back and figure out how to explain those anomalies so that some unknown does not come back and bite you in the a**.
edit: And let's differentiate between "anomaly" and "within the error bars". The former suggests an unexpected and unexplained behavior; the latter suggests behavior within modeled-predicted behaviors. If we have an anomaly that needs to be addressed. If the behavior is within modeled-predicted behaviors, then you may be correct in suggesting this is a canard.
Parachute systems are very dynamic, particularly during deployment, and difficult to be completely modeled-predicted.
Even on systems that have been in use for decades (yes: decades) there occasionally is an anomaly (such as a chute not deploying properly) that cannot be explained.
That is why parachute systems have very large margins of error: exactly because not all behaviour of those systems can be modeled.
Crew Dragon can safely land under just 3 parachutes, even with a full load of fuel still on-board. But, NASA wanted to err on the safe side and requested SpaceX to add a fourth parachute to the design. SpaceX complied.
And even now, with a margin of safety that is greater than on any other existing, or soon to exist, crew transportation system, NASA is still getting cold feet.
Finally: it's not just SpaceX that is having trouble in convincing NASA that their parachute system is safe.
Boeing is having nearly exactly the same problem (as referred to by ASAP in their most recent meeting).
Post by: woods170 on 11/30/2018 06:51 am
Thank God NASA isn‘t involved in Starship, and I bloody well hope it stays that way 😠
Elon would be extremely well-advised to keep NASA folks away from any aspect of ITS/BFR/BFS/Starship, at all times.
Because if he doesn't it will either launch never at all or at least a decade late. Not to mention that it won't be financially viable due to all the "features" added to satisfy NASA's demands.
Post by: kevinof on 11/30/2018 07:03 am
Thank God NASA isn‘t involved in Starship, and I bloody well hope it stays that way 😠
Elon would be extremely well-advised to keep NASA folks away from any aspect of ITS/BFR/BFS/Starship, at all times.
Because if he doesn't it will either launch never at all or at least a decade late. Not to mention that it won't be financially viable due to all the "features" added to satisfy NASA's demands.
Post by: woods170 on 11/30/2018 08:25 am
Couldn't agree more. It would be the death of the project and I think you're being a little generous to Nasa when you say a decade late. I suspect it would be a lot, lot more.Thank God NASA isn‘t involved in Starship, and I bloody well hope it stays that way 😠
Elon would be extremely well-advised to keep NASA folks away from any aspect of ITS/BFR/BFS/Starship, at all times.
Because if he doesn't it will either launch never at all or at least a decade late. Not to mention that it won't be financially viable due to all the "features" added to satisfy NASA's demands.
IMO Crew Dragon is what brings SpaceX on par with NASA and Starship will be the thing where SpaceX leaps beyond NASA.
If anyone at SpaceX would be silly enough to keep NASA in the lead, mankind in general, and SpaceX in particular, will never get to Mars. Ever.
Post by: marsbase on 11/30/2018 09:12 am
And even now, with a margin of safety that is greater than on any other existing, or soon to exist, crew transportation system, NASA is still getting cold feet.You may recall that SpaceX wanted to use propulsive landing with Crew Dragon (Red Dragon) for exactly this reason (and so the manned capsule could land on planets without oceans. :)
Finally: it's not just SpaceX that is having trouble in convincing NASA that their parachute system is safe.
Post by: woods170 on 11/30/2018 10:56 am
And even now, with a margin of safety that is greater than on any other existing, or soon to exist, crew transportation system, NASA is still getting cold feet.You may recall that SpaceX wanted to use propulsive landing with Crew Dragon (Red Dragon) for exactly this reason (and so the manned capsule could land on planets without oceans. :)
Finally: it's not just SpaceX that is having trouble in convincing NASA that their parachute system is safe.
Yes. But propulsive landing is what gave some folks at NASA really cold feet. But that story is from another day and has been told already in another thread.
Post by: gongora on 11/30/2018 02:51 pm
Post by: woods170 on 11/30/2018 07:06 pm
This is the mission thread for DM-1. BFR/Starship conversation doesn't belong here. Propulsive landing discussion doesn't belong here.
Hence why I didn't elaborate any further in reply #298.
Post by: vt_hokie on 11/30/2018 08:49 pm
Here you go:
https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/180712-spacex-768x768.jpg
I'm not sure if this was before or after that photo, but I forgot about this glimpse of Crew Dragon at KSC at the 1:45 mark in this video! I'm guessing that's likely the actual flight trunk mated to the capsule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoU5P2SSCho
Post by: kdhilliard on 11/30/2018 11:11 pm
..., but I forgot about this glimpse of Crew Dragon at KSC at the 1:45 mark in this video! I'm guessing that's likely the actual flight trunk mated to the capsule.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aoU5P2SSCho
Here are screenshots from 1:45 & 1:46. Anyone here recognize the facility?
That video was posted on August 31.
Post by: WindnWar on 11/30/2018 11:53 pm
..., but I forgot about this glimpse of Crew Dragon at KSC at the 1:45 mark in this video! I'm guessing that's likely the actual flight trunk mated to the capsule.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aoU5P2SSCho
Here are screenshots from 1:45 & 1:46. Anyone here recognize the facility?
That video was posted on August 31.
Since there are no solar cells on the trunk yet, that was probably taken at the facility where the vacuum testing was completed.
Post by: Codemaster on 11/30/2018 11:54 pm
..., but I forgot about this glimpse of Crew Dragon at KSC at the 1:45 mark in this video! I'm guessing that's likely the actual flight trunk mated to the capsule.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aoU5P2SSCho (https://youtube.com/watch?v=aoU5P2SSCho)
Here are screenshots from 1:45 & 1:46. Anyone here recognize the facility?
That video was posted on August 31.
That looks like the vacuum chamber at Plum Brook. Dragon was up here for testing earlier this year.
Post by: vt_hokie on 12/01/2018 12:32 am
That looks like the vacuum chamber at Plum Brook. Dragon was up here for testing earlier this year.
Thanks, makes sense, not sure why I assumed that was KSC. Oh well, just gonna have to wait a bit longer for some new developments! Has there been any word on whether instrumented dummies might be aboard the vehicle for DM-1?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/03/2018 06:29 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1069674796676464640
Post by: ZachS09 on 12/03/2018 07:03 pm
Post by: gongora on 12/03/2018 07:15 pm
It is DM-1. DM-2 won't fly until the middle of 2019.
That crew will be on ISS in mid-2019. I don't think trying to parse that statement is going to be terribly useful without more information.
Post by: Comga on 12/03/2018 07:29 pm
It is DM-1. DM-2 won't fly until the middle of 2019.
I agree with your conclusion but not your logic.
The Soyuz MS-12 crew will still be on the ISS at NASA's recently posted launch date for DM-2.
However, with Bridenstine hinting at unspecified delays, and the term "first launch" instead of a long winded description about "American astronauts launching from American soil on American rockets" and so on it's probably DM-1.
Post by: Alexphysics on 12/03/2018 07:32 pm
It is DM-1. DM-2 won't fly until the middle of 2019.
I agree with your conclusion but not your logic.
The Soyuz MS-12 crew will still be on the ISS at NASA's recently posted launch date for DM-2.
However, with Bridenstine hinting at unspecified delays, and the term "first launch" instead of a long winded description about "American astronauts launching from American soil on American rockets" and so on it's probably DM-1.
Soyuz MS-12 comes back in October so if there are no issues, they have a good chance of welcoming DM-2 to the station. From June to October that is 4 months of delays... Let's hope we don't get to that point.
Post by: Star One on 12/03/2018 07:40 pm
Couldn't agree more. It would be the death of the project and I think you're being a little generous to Nasa when you say a decade late. I suspect it would be a lot, lot more.Thank God NASA isn‘t involved in Starship, and I bloody well hope it stays that way
Elon would be extremely well-advised to keep NASA folks away from any aspect of ITS/BFR/BFS/Starship, at all times.
Because if he doesn't it will either launch never at all or at least a decade late. Not to mention that it won't be financially viable due to all the "features" added to satisfy NASA's demands.
IMO Crew Dragon is what brings SpaceX on par with NASA and Starship will be the thing where SpaceX leaps beyond NASA.
If anyone at SpaceX would be silly enough to keep NASA in the lead, mankind in general, and SpaceX in particular, will never get to Mars. Ever.
Is there any point to this tedious NASA bashing. Something that hardly befits this forum and more worthy of the comments under a You Tube video or on a Reddit thread.
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 12/03/2018 07:55 pm
Also says every component for the mission is there at the cape
Post by: envy887 on 12/03/2018 08:15 pm
It is DM-1. DM-2 won't fly until the middle of 2019.
I agree with your conclusion but not your logic.
The Soyuz MS-12 crew will still be on the ISS at NASA's recently posted launch date for DM-2.
However, with Bridenstine hinting at unspecified delays, and the term "first launch" instead of a long winded description about "American astronauts launching from American soil on American rockets" and so on it's probably DM-1.
Soyuz MS-12 comes back in October so if there are no issues, they have a good chance of welcoming DM-2 to the station. From June to October that is 4 months of delays... Let's hope we don't get to that point.
Seems unlikely they were talking about DM-1, since at the same time they were saying CRS-16 and DM-1 could overlap, and CRS-16 can't stay at ISS until Feb 28th. Right?
Post by: Alexphysics on 12/03/2018 09:40 pm
It is DM-1. DM-2 won't fly until the middle of 2019.
I agree with your conclusion but not your logic.
The Soyuz MS-12 crew will still be on the ISS at NASA's recently posted launch date for DM-2.
However, with Bridenstine hinting at unspecified delays, and the term "first launch" instead of a long winded description about "American astronauts launching from American soil on American rockets" and so on it's probably DM-1.
Soyuz MS-12 comes back in October so if there are no issues, they have a good chance of welcoming DM-2 to the station. From June to October that is 4 months of delays... Let's hope we don't get to that point.
Seems unlikely they were talking about DM-1, since at the same time they were saying CRS-16 and DM-1 could overlap, and CRS-16 can't stay at ISS until Feb 28th. Right?
CRS-16 returns mid-January. The NASA press release talks in general about the Commercial Crew mission and not a specific one but Soyuz MS-11 press release also talked about that so don't panic, people, this is just a "hey, these people will be there while we do the commercial crew missions!".
Post by: Michael Baylor on 12/04/2018 11:36 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1070112522626306049
Post by: Bubbinski on 12/05/2018 06:27 pm
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/05/2018 06:46 pm
I noted during the SpaceX webcast one of the SpaceX people said that DM-1 was still set for January. Guess the NASA admin decided it was OK to launch next month after all?
He only said January was unlikely. "No Earlier Than" January and unlikely January are not contradictory. He said spring, which starts in March. Given that it is creeping up on February, that isn't a bad bet.
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/05/2018 07:24 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/06/2018 01:11 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1070674981359681536
Quote
At the NAC HEO meeting, Bill Gerstenmaier says the SpaceX Demo-1 mission is planned “towards the end of January.”
Edit to add more detail:
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1070675246959771649
Quote
MNASA’s Bill Gerstenmaier says SpaceX’s Demo-1 Crew Dragon mission is planned toward the end of January. Lots of reviews in the next couple of weeks, he tells the NASA Advisory Council’s HEO committee.
Post by: woods170 on 12/06/2018 01:59 pm
Interesting given Bridenstine’s reported recent remarks:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1070674981359681536QuoteAt the NAC HEO meeting, Bill Gerstenmaier says the SpaceX Demo-1 mission is planned “towards the end of January.”
Edit to add more detail:
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1070675246959771649QuoteMNASA’s Bill Gerstenmaier says SpaceX’s Demo-1 Crew Dragon mission is planned toward the end of January. Lots of reviews in the next couple of weeks, he tells the NASA Advisory Council’s HEO committee.
Only serves to (again) prove that NASA is anything but a monolithic organization.
Post by: gongora on 12/06/2018 02:02 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/06/2018 04:23 pm
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1070720623712845824
Quote
NASA’s Phil McAlister updates the status of SpaceX’s Demo-1 Crew Dragon spacecraft, and says the company aims to have all hardware ready by Dec. 20, then will stand down for the holidays before resuming launch preps in January.
Post by: abaddon on 12/06/2018 05:32 pm
I thought Gerst said as soon as January, I think some of the tweets are overselling that time frame."As soon as January" means that current planning has this in January, so planning being "towards the end of January" would not be inconsistent.
Post by: gongora on 12/07/2018 01:25 am
Quote
Musk met with Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for human exploration and operations, in Washington on Thursday. The two discussed SpaceX’s Demo-1 launch slated for January, NASA spokeswoman Megan Powers wrote in an email.
The article really doesn't say much more than that.
Post by: adrianwyard on 12/07/2018 02:14 am
SpaceX on track with the hardware:
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1070720623712845824QuoteNASA’s Phil McAlister updates the status of SpaceX’s Demo-1 Crew Dragon spacecraft, and says the company aims to have all hardware ready by Dec. 20, then will stand down for the holidays before resuming launch preps in January.
Landing legs?
Post by: theinternetftw on 12/07/2018 02:18 am
Landing legs?
Iirc, this question has been asked before on an earlier version of this slide, and the answer was that they've been pasting new dates to show progress over an old assembly chart for quite a few such meetings now. Architectural changes have come and gone, with the chart still being "good enough" to keep pasting new dates over.
Post by: abaddon on 12/07/2018 02:18 am
Edit: missed the context. Agreed it is just out of date.
Post by: gongora on 12/07/2018 02:24 am
Post by: Nomadd on 12/07/2018 02:33 am
Post by: gongora on 12/07/2018 02:36 am
I take it the 12/18/19 date for tank installation on DM-2 is a typo.
They need to hire you as a proofreader. Yeah, a typo.
Post by: soltasto on 12/07/2018 01:38 pm
Post by: abaddon on 12/07/2018 01:58 pm
Post by: gongora on 12/07/2018 09:37 pm
NASA and SpaceX have agreed to move the target launch date of the uncrewed Demo-1 flight test to the International Space Station. SpaceX coordinated with the Eastern Range for a launch on Thursday, Jan 17. This adjustment allows the return of the Dragon spacecraft from the company’s 16th commercial resupply services mission. SpaceX’s Demo-1 will provide key data associated with the ground, integrated rocket and spacecraft, and autonomous docking systems, and the landing profile ahead of the company’s flight test with astronauts, known as Demo-2.
“We still have more work to do as the certification process, hardware development and readiness reviews continue,” said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. “The key readiness reviews along with NASA’s continued analysis of hardware and software testing and certification data must be closed out prior to launch. The upcoming steps before the test missions are critical, and their importance can’t be understated. We are not driven by dates, but by data. Ultimately, we’ll fly SpaceX Demo-1 at the right time, so we get the right data back to support the in-flight abort test and the next test flight when our astronauts are aboard. However, the fact we’re coordinating target dates with the Eastern Range is a great example of the real progress we’re making with commercial crew and how close we are to actually flying American spacecraft and rockets from American soil again.”
Post by: matthewkantar on 12/08/2018 02:38 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/08/2018 11:24 am
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/12/dragon-science-nasa-spacex-realign-dm-1-17-january-launch/ … - by Chris Gebhardt
Post by: koennecke on 12/09/2018 06:27 am
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/09/2018 07:56 am
Is crewed Dragon grappled for docking at ISS or does it do it using its own motors?
It uses its own motors.
Post by: Comga on 12/10/2018 06:25 am
to say
Quote
NET January 18 - Dragon v2 (SpX-DM1) un-crewed launch and docking (to Harmony PMA-2/IDA2) ~01:00
2019-01-18 01:00 UTC = 2019-01-17 20:00 EST ?
Same day docking?
edit: Chris G's article implied 3 days between launch and docking, albeit that could be 2 days plus a few hours.
Post by: Olaf on 12/10/2018 07:14 am
On Dec 7 Salo edited his Schedule of ISS Events - 2 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32006.msg1883869#msg1883869)The 2019 schedule, provided by anik, shows two days between launch and Docking.
to sayQuoteNET January 18 - Dragon v2 (SpX-DM1) un-crewed launch and docking (to Harmony PMA-2/IDA2) ~01:00
2019-01-18 01:00 UTC = 2019-01-17 20:00 EST ?
Same day docking?
edit: Chris G's article implied 3 days between launch and docking, albeit that could be 2 days plus a few hours.
Post by: kdhilliard on 12/10/2018 01:38 pm
Quote
Something that is now abundantly clear from both SpaceX and NASA is that DM-1 is still very much targeting a launch in January 2019, a date that had been thrown into wild disarray and speculation with comments from NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine that January was “unfeasible” and that the mission would “definitely launch in the first half of the year” – statements the raise questions as to why the Administrator would seemingly make such incorrect statements to the public.
From the 29 November USA Today article, NASA program to launch astronauts to space station facing delays but 2019 still on target (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/29/nasa-program-send-astronauts-space-station-facing-more-delays/2143813002/):
Quote
Bridenstine's acknowledgment that January is a "very low probability" window is the first time the agency has publicly cast doubt on the timing of the scheduled launch from Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
That USA Today article is quite sloppy, never identifying what event or interview their quotes and paraphrases come form. This (https://spacenews.com/nasa-and-spacex-still-aiming-for-january-commercial-crew-test-flight/) Space News article from a week later links to the USA Today article and says that the Administrator's remarks came from a 29 November media roundtable at NASA Headquarters. I've not found any other coverage of the roundtable, though perhaps is was held following the Commercial Lunar Payload Services partnerships announcement.
Chris G, is your “unfeasible” a direct quote (and if so from what source) or are you paraphrasing the USA Today quote? Did you attend that roundtable?
Post by: kdhilliard on 12/13/2018 05:15 pm
Quote
Ten years is an eternity. We've only been in business for sixteen. And what have we done in sixteen years? We've flown sixty-five times; flew a Falcon Heavy; sixteen missions to the International Space Station; developed a crew capsule that we're about ready to fly here; we'll have a dry dress rehearsal right before Christmas, should fly it a couple weeks later in January. All that in sixteen years. So ten years with this momentum, that's very achievable.
From 11:14 into yesterday's Marketplace radio interview: At SpaceX, Gwynne Shotwell's job is to solve the problems that others can't (https://www.marketplace.org/2018/12/12/business/corner-office/spacex-gwynne-shotwells-job-solve-problems-others-cant) [14:15 audio; limited transcript]
Post by: Rondaz on 12/14/2018 07:57 pm
Dec. 14, 2018
Social media users are invited to register to attend the SpaceX Commercial Crew uncrewed flight test, known as Demo-1. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft will launch atop the company’s Falcon 9 rocket from historic Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Demo-1 is targeted for Thursday, Jan. 17, 2019. However, NASA has a series of reviews before the uncrewed test flight, and the outcome of these reviews, including the Flight Readiness Review, will ultimately determine the Demo-1 launch date.
If your passion is to communicate and engage the world via social media, then this is the event for you! Seize the opportunity to be on the front line to blog, tweet or Instagram everything about SpaceX’s uncrewed flight test of the Crew Dragon atop a Falcon 9 rocket for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
A maximum of 120 social media users will be selected to attend this two-day event, slated for January 16-17, 2019, and will be given access similar to news media.
NASA Social participants will have the opportunity to:
View the demo flight of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon spacecraft
Tour NASA facilities at Kennedy Space Center
Speak with representatives from NASA and SpaceX
View and take photographs of the Falcon 9 rocket with the Crew Dragon at Launch Complex 39A
Meet fellow space enthusiasts who are active on social media
NASA Social registration for the Commercial Crew / SpaceX Demo-1 launch opens on this page on December 14 and closes at 11:59am EST on December 17. All social applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
https://www.nasa.gov/social/spacexdemo
Post by: Lars-J on 12/18/2018 06:54 pm
https://twitter.com/VP/status/1075108943125458944
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/18/2018 08:17 pm
Quote
Few of my favorites from today's Pence visit to #SpaceX pad 39A. In first photo, from left to right: Previously flown B1048, booster for DM-1, Crew Dragon for DM-1. Look at the size of that Merlin engine bell.
More photos: goo.gl/XBT7V6
Post by: Lars-J on 12/18/2018 08:50 pm
Post by: Mammutti on 12/18/2018 09:09 pm
Quote
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket are positioned at the company’s hangar at Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, ahead of the Demo-1 flight test targeted for January 17, 2019.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2018/12/18/spacex-demo-1-spacecraft-and-rocket-at-launch-pad/
Post by: Lars-J on 12/18/2018 09:19 pm
EDIT: Another solar panel side angle, a little brighter:
source: https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1075144854924115968
Post by: FlokiViking on 12/18/2018 10:34 pm
I'd expect it to be more apparent how to open it from the outside. And will there be a window in it?
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/18/2018 11:14 pm
That's surely not the "final" (DM-2+) Dragon hatch design is it?
I'd expect it to be more apparent how to open it from the outside. And will there be a window in it?
Correct, this isn't the final hatch design. Also the flight unit / crew hatch should have a window in it, unless that window was deleted? Windows are heavy, it would be an easy way to save mass.
Post by: CT Space Guy on 12/18/2018 11:44 pm
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/18/2018 11:50 pm
I was wondering if anyone knows...I thought the fins on the trunk were going to have radiators on them? It looks to me that they are covered in solar cells?Only on half of the trunk.
Post by: mme on 12/19/2018 12:31 am
I was wondering if anyone knows...I thought the fins on the trunk were going to have radiators on them? It looks to me that they are covered in solar cells?Just a guess, but it kooks to me like the white side of the *trunk* is the radiators.
Post by: Lars-J on 12/19/2018 01:02 am
I was wondering if anyone knows...I thought the fins on the trunk were going to have radiators on them? It looks to me that they are covered in solar cells?Just a guess, but it kooks to me like the white side of the *trunk* is the radiators.
Correct.
Post by: Alexphysics on 12/19/2018 01:05 am
That's surely not the "final" (DM-2+) Dragon hatch design is it?
I'd expect it to be more apparent how to open it from the outside. And will there be a window in it?
Correct, this isn't the final hatch design. Also the flight unit / crew hatch should have a window in it, unless that window was deleted? Windows are heavy, it would be an easy way to save mass.
Final hatch design doesn't have a window on it. Just the four standard windows at the sides of the hatch. This one only has 2 of those four windows. Next Dragon 2's will have all four windows.
Post by: Comga on 12/19/2018 01:37 am
Finally a shot of the solar panel side! :)Subjective of course, but to me the new trunk looks even better than the illustrations.
EDIT: Another solar panel side angle, a little brighter:
source: https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1075144854924115968 (https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1075144854924115968)
It’s hard to believe that an efficient array will be strong enough and smooth enough to survive and be effective in supersonic airflow, but they must have tested them extensively.
It looks like the individual cells are curved.
This from a group that started making their own panels just a few years ago.
Post by: deruch on 12/19/2018 02:28 am
Post by: CorvusCorax on 12/19/2018 07:18 am
Are they covered in foam during ascent or just pre-flight?
This seems kinda weird, assuming they will be exposed during reentry, ascent shouldnt really bother them ?!?
Then again, the capsule does fly the other way around during descent.
Any insight on that?
Post by: Lars-J on 12/19/2018 07:56 am
If you look at the “solar panel side” of dragon you can see the covers. There are three Draco thruster just next to each Super Draco fairing. Same on the front side. And I think there are a couple more on each side.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/19/2018 10:44 am
Post by: jpo234 on 12/19/2018 01:15 pm
QuoteSpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket are positioned at the company’s hangar at Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, ahead of the Demo-1 flight test targeted for January 17, 2019.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2018/12/18/spacex-demo-1-spacecraft-and-rocket-at-launch-pad/
The photos are now on SpaceX's Flickr stream (https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/).
Post by: clongton on 12/26/2018 11:08 pm
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/27/2018 04:29 am
Are there any systems required to be fully functional on the first CREWED flight, DM-2, which are not fully functional on DM-1? Is DM-1 a fully functional spacecraft?
It doesn't have all the windows! :-)
Post by: Brovane on 12/27/2018 03:13 pm
Are there any potential impacts on the DM1 mission schedule if the government shutdown continues into the new year?
Post by: gongora on 12/27/2018 03:16 pm
My apologies if this is the in-correct thread.
Are there any potential impacts on the DM1 mission schedule if the government shutdown continues into the new year?
I don't know the answer to your question (I would guess the duration of the shutdown will matter here). I just wanted to comment that your question belongs in this thread, and factual answers to it belong in this thread. Opinions on the government shutdown should go in the Space Policy section.
Post by: Sam Ho on 12/27/2018 06:01 pm
My apologies if this is the in-correct thread.
Are there any potential impacts on the DM1 mission schedule if the government shutdown continues into the new year?
I don't know the answer to your question (I would guess the duration of the shutdown will matter here). I just wanted to comment that your question belongs in this thread, and factual answers to it belong in this thread. Opinions on the government shutdown should go in the Space Policy section.
The shutdown plan says "During the next six months, NASA will be fully engaged in several crew and cargo resupply launches to the ISS. Other time-critical activities including those related to future ISS crew rotation and resupply activities will also continue at their full tempo. All of these activities are necessary to protect life and property."
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/181218_revised_shutdown_plan.pdf
Post by: deruch on 12/27/2018 07:05 pm
My apologies if this is the in-correct thread.
Are there any potential impacts on the DM1 mission schedule if the government shutdown continues into the new year?
Yes probably. NASA is on the list of affected agencies. So, in the absence of a quick deal I would definitely expect DM-1 to be impacted as there is a good chance that most/all of the NASA people involved with the remaining pre-launch reviews will be furloughed.
Post by: vanoord on 12/27/2018 08:19 pm
Yes probably. NASA is on the list of affected agencies. So, in the absence of a quick deal I would definitely expect DM-1 to be impacted as there is a good chance that most/all of the NASA people involved with the remaining pre-launch reviews will be furloughed.
From the post above you (sorry):
Quote
Other time-critical activities including those related to future ISS crew rotation and resupply activities will also continue at their full tempo.
One would assume that DM-1 'will continue at ... full tempo"?
Post by: AC in NC on 12/27/2018 08:39 pm
One would assume that DM-1 'will continue at ... full tempo"?
I wouldn't. For a variety of reasons.
Post by: drnscr on 12/27/2018 09:10 pm
One would assume that DM-1 'will continue at ... full tempo"?
I wouldn't. For a variety of reasons.
Such as???
Post by: clongton on 12/27/2018 09:14 pm
Are there any systems required to be fully functional on the first CREWED flight, DM-2, which are not fully functional on DM-1? Is DM-1 a fully functional spacecraft?
It doesn't have all the windows! :-)
So unlike Orion, this is a fully functional spacecraft on its 1st test flight?
Thanks
Post by: AC in NC on 12/27/2018 09:19 pm
Such as???
1) I would not consider DM-1 "time critical". CCP cannot depend on anything until it's certified and so it's unclear why it would be considered "time critical".
2) Some of the language talks about not impacting "Life and Property" which is more along the lines of what I think Rotation/Resupply is about. They will have alternatives until after certification so DM-1 isn't a "Life and Property" issue.
3) There was some talk of institutional slow-walking from the NASA Administrator and there could be some truth to that.
4) It's the government.
Post by: gongora on 12/27/2018 10:08 pm
Are there any systems required to be fully functional on the first CREWED flight, DM-2, which are not fully functional on DM-1? Is DM-1 a fully functional spacecraft?
It doesn't have all the windows! :-)
So unlike Orion, this is a fully functional spacecraft on its 1st test flight.
Thanks
I'm pretty sure DM-1 won't have some of the life-support equipment running.
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/28/2018 12:08 am
We'll see, but unlike Orion, it will definitely have some since crew will enter it on docking.Are there any systems required to be fully functional on the first CREWED flight, DM-2, which are not fully functional on DM-1? Is DM-1 a fully functional spacecraft?
It doesn't have all the windows! :-)
So unlike Orion, this is a fully functional spacecraft on its 1st test flight.
Thanks
I'm pretty sure DM-1 won't have some of the life-support equipment running.
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 12/28/2018 01:55 am
Quote from: Brovane link=topic=36966.msg189327Are there any potential impacts on the DM1 mission schedule if the government shutdown continues into the new year?
Yes probably. NASA is on the list of affected agencies. So, in the absence of a quick deal I would definitely expect DM-1 to be impacted as there is a good chance that most/all of the NASA people involved with the remaining pre-launch reviews will be furloughed.
That probably depends on the precise terms of the contract between NASA and SpaceX. I suspect that it includes clauses as to agreed upon pre-launch reviews and that NASA has the right to nominate people to attend and contribute to those reviews etc. But, I suspect the contract is silent on what happens if NASA fails to nominate anybody or if the nominees fail to turn up. In such circumstances, SpaceX could well have the right under the contract to proceed with the test anyway. (Whether SpaceX would find it politic so to do is another matter!)
NASA personnel are not needed to conduct the test and they'd review the results from telemetry etc, which isn't going anywhere.
Post by: Roy_H on 12/28/2018 02:42 am
NASA personnel are not needed to conduct the test and they'd review the results from telemetry etc, which isn't going anywhere.
False. Range personnel and others for safety etc. are required. I don't think anyone here can predict the effect accurately. So much depends on actual wording and interpretation. If personnel are required to support cargo Dragon launches would the wording clearly state cargo only or be generically all craft going to ISS?
Post by: gongora on 12/28/2018 03:02 am
Quote from: Brovane link=topic=36966.msg189327Are there any potential impacts on the DM1 mission schedule if the government shutdown continues into the new year?
Yes probably. NASA is on the list of affected agencies. So, in the absence of a quick deal I would definitely expect DM-1 to be impacted as there is a good chance that most/all of the NASA people involved with the remaining pre-launch reviews will be furloughed.
That probably depends on the precise terms of the contract between NASA and SpaceX. I suspect that it includes clauses as to agreed upon pre-launch reviews and that NASA has the right to nominate people to attend and contribute to those reviews etc. But, I suspect the contract is silent on what happens if NASA fails to nominate anybody or if the nominees fail to turn up. In such circumstances, SpaceX could well have the right under the contract to proceed with the test anyway. (Whether SpaceX would find it politic so to do is another matter!)
NASA personnel are not needed to conduct the test and they'd review the results from telemetry etc, which isn't going anywhere.
Did you just completely make that up? Do you have any basis for what you just wrote?
Post by: clongton on 12/28/2018 04:34 am
NASA personnel are not needed to conduct the test and they'd review the results from telemetry etc, which isn't going anywhere.
False. Range personnel and others for safety etc. are required.
Aren't Range personnel USAF?
Post by: kessdawg on 12/28/2018 12:56 pm
NASA personnel are not needed to conduct the test and they'd review the results from telemetry etc, which isn't going anywhere.
False. Range personnel and others for safety etc. are required.
Aren't Range personnel USAF?
Does NASA have to have people on hand for launches from Kennedy/39A?
Post by: smoliarm on 12/28/2018 01:00 pm
Quote
МОСКВА, 28 дек - РИА Новости. Первый запуск к МКС нового американского космического корабля Dragon-2 (разработчик - компания SpaceX Илона Маска) в беспилотном режиме, планировавшийся на 17 января 2019 года, перенесен на конец месяца, сообщил РИА Новости в пятницу источник в российской ракетно-космической отрасли.Google translate:
"Американская сторона довела до нас информацию об отсрочке первого запуска корабля Dragon-2, который полетит к МКС в беспилотном режиме, с 17 января на конец месяца", - сказал собеседник агентства, не уточнив при этом причину переноса.
Quote
MOSCOW, Dec 28 - RIA News. The first launch of the new American spacecraft Dragon-2 to the ISS (developed by SpaceX Ilona Mask) unmanned, scheduled for January 17, 2019, was postponed to the end of the month, a source in the Russian space industry told RIA Novosti on Friday.
"The US side brought to us information about the postponement of the first launch of the Dragon-2 spacecraft, which will fly to the ISS in unmanned mode from January 17 to the end of the month," the agency’s source said, without specifying the reason for the transfer.
Does anybody have some info from NASA?
Recently there were examples of information from "a source in the Russian space industry" which turned out to be inaccurate. So I would not trust this info for now.
Post by: anik on 12/28/2018 01:26 pm
So I would not trust this info for now
You can trust or not trust but it is a fact.
Post by: woods170 on 12/28/2018 01:47 pm
So I would not trust this info for now
You can trust or not trust but it is a fact.
Sort of. I'm hearing the same thing. And it was mentioned to me that there are multiple reasons for this delay, the government shutdown being one of 'em.
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 12/28/2018 02:07 pm
The TEL is no longer in the pad, so hopefully fit checks will occur later in the week, maybe next week.
Post by: deruch on 12/28/2018 02:23 pm
NASA personnel are not needed to conduct the test and they'd review the results from telemetry etc, which isn't going anywhere.
False. Range personnel and others for safety etc. are required.
Aren't Range personnel USAF?
Yes, Range is still USAF and DoD funding isn't impacted by the shutdown because they were covered in a separate bill that had already passed. But the point isn't that SpaceX would have trouble actually launching. It's that there is still NASA-side work/review for CCP that will need to happen before DM-1 launches. These activities won't be covered under NASA's emergency operations allowances. So, while NASA put out a statement regarding "time-critical activities including those related to future ISS crew rotation and resupply activities" continuing at full tempo, that was about actual resupply missions and actual crew rotation missions. Not CCP development flights. What they were really saying was, "The astronauts onboard the ISS aren't going to starve and the facility isn't going to fall out of the sky because the govt. is shutdown." The fact that DM-1 scheduling will have an eventual knock-on effect to future crew rotations isn't enough to make it "time-critical". Ergo, DM-1 will be impacted.
Post by: mn on 12/28/2018 04:55 pm
NASA personnel are not needed to conduct the test and they'd review the results from telemetry etc, which isn't going anywhere.
False. Range personnel and others for safety etc. are required.
Aren't Range personnel USAF?
Yes, Range is still USAF and DoD funding isn't impacted by the shutdown because they were covered in a separate bill that had already passed. But the point isn't that SpaceX would have trouble actually launching. It's that there is still NASA-side work/review for CCP that will need to happen before DM-1 launches. These activities won't be covered under NASA's emergency operations allowances. So, while NASA put out a statement regarding "time-critical activities including those related to future ISS crew rotation and resupply activities" continuing at full tempo, that was about actual resupply missions and actual crew rotation missions. Not CCP development flights. What they were really saying was, "The astronauts onboard the ISS aren't going to starve and the facility isn't going to fall out of the sky because the govt. is shutdown." The fact that DM-1 scheduling will have an eventual knock-on effect to future crew rotations isn't enough to make it "time-critical". Ergo, DM-1 will be impacted.
What you are saying obviously makes sense and I agree with that.
But the government is under no obligation to make sense (if it did there wouldn't be a shutdown in the first place).
I suspect there's nothing stopping NASA from declaring DM-1 critical. (unless there's a specific lawmaker who wants DM-1 delayed and speaks up)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/28/2018 05:58 pm
Dragon v2 - Late January:***
https://ria.ru/20181228/1548854949.html
A separate, general observation from being an NSF reader :), working in the bowels of Trantor = Federal bureaucracy :(, and staying at a Holiday Inn Express ::).
It's not "political," so I don't perceive a need to state it in the "Policy" section.
Very little work gets done between Christmas and New Year's Day because a substantial portion of the civil service is out of the office, partial federal furlough or not. We have THREE Federal Holidays in succession this year in the same 2-week pay period:
Monday, December 24 (by Presidential declaration)
Tuesday, December 25
Tuesday, January 1.
EDIT ADD: The furlough began on December 22, a Saturday. The first 2 furlough days are a full weekend, and many "white collar" civil servants don't work weekends.
This is followed by a week of two consecutive holidays plus 3 days that a substantial portion of the civil service is on leave.
This is followed by another weekend, followed by a Monday that is often another day of leave, followed by a third holiday.
If the furlough extends into Wednesday, January 2 or beyond, then things may start to "stack up."
Post by: deruch on 12/29/2018 02:51 am
The fact that DM-1 scheduling will have an eventual knock-on effect to future crew rotations isn't enough to make it "time-critical". Ergo, DM-1 will be impacted.I suspect there's nothing stopping NASA from declaring DM-1 critical. (unless there's a specific lawmaker who wants DM-1 delayed and speaks up)
There is actually. They have rules and policies in place for this sort of thing. Not just NASA internal but the govt. in general does. That's not to say that CCP couldn't apply for some sort of exemption or special circumstances permission.... But until they do so, DM-1 wouldn't qualify. If they apply for something like that, it will be public.
Post by: mulp on 12/29/2018 08:55 am
Contract workers never get paid if time and materials, like janitors, maintenance contract workers. Thus they never work. Unless specifically contracted to work on an exception basis.
SpaceX, et al, are delivering on "fixed price" contracts where price and delivery date remain unchanged unless modified. Lack of NASA signoff due to no paid workers will justify contract modifications, but such changes can't be made because NASA workers aren't working, and in fact ordered to not work.
Note, this is not unique to government, as i was a service tech trying to fix our vendor equipment problems for F-100 corporations and had their grunts apologize for running out on me when they wanted to stay, because of manager orders, regarding overtime pay typically. In most cases the grunts would work without pay because i taught them as much as i could so they could fix problems themselves, etc.
I bet NASA employees involved with SpaceX would work "without pay" knowing they will be paid 99% certain, and Elon would direct any contractors get paid by SpaceX based on opportunity cost tradeoffs on his long term critical path, like freeing people for hopper tests in a year. But there are those who want disruption and pain, especially some factions in Congress to score political points. So, two weeks without funding could result in one week delay, or four weeks. Is SpaceX friend or foe? Pence visiting means friend?
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 12/29/2018 01:29 pm
Contract workers never get paid if time and materials, like janitors, maintenance contract workers. Thus they never work. Unless specifically contracted to work on an exception basis.
This is too simplistic and not particularly true. I worked for an Army support contractor on a T&M contract for 25+ years and we pretty much always worked through the shutdowns. If you have a contract, and there is money committed on the contract, and you have access to what you need, then you work. Our management, working with their gov't counterparts always ensured the conditions were met to keep working. (Sure that wasn't the case for the janitors, etc.) There are many different kinds of 'money' in the gov't, but generally 2018 money committed on a contract may be spent until the end of 2019. And since shutdowns and last second deals are nothing new, we almost always had money on contract to carry us through to at least the end of Jan.
Often times, if a shutdown appeared likely it would become hard to purchase items toward the end of the year because management (on contractor and gov't sides) was trying to hold every dollar in reserve for labor. No doubt there are many variations depending on types of money, perceived importance, aptitude of management, and relationship with one's gov't organization.
Post by: kessdawg on 12/30/2018 03:46 pm
I bet NASA employees involved with SpaceX would work "without pay" knowing they will be paid 99% certain
Note that this is actually illegal if the NASA employees are furloughed. As a federal employee myself, I'd love to just be working on my projects, but we legally can't even turn work laptops or phones on.
Post by: cuddihy on 12/31/2018 07:32 pm
And no one has ever been charged for working unpaid unless they were selling secrets or profiting someone other than the government by it.
So I think it is an urban legend.
Edit/Lar: Soften
Post by: kessdawg on 12/31/2018 08:19 pm
Not illegal, just against policy. You can do all the free clerical and thought work you want as long as you don’t incur government commitment to pay you or someone else later for what you did.
And no one has ever been charged for working unpaid unless they were selling secrets or profiting someone other than the government by it.
So I think it is an urban legends.
I believe you are incorrect.
First, see the OPM FAQ on Government shutdown here (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf). Page 6 points you to "31 U.S. Code § 1342 - Limitation on voluntary services"
Quote
An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.
If you'd like some history on why this prohibition on voluntary (yes, even "free clerical and thought") work exists, this excellent article from The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-odd-story-of-the-law-that-dictates-how-government-shutdowns-work/280047/) contains a history on the tug of war between the legislative and executive branches that brought us to it.
Edit/Lar:Soften
Post by: Zpoxy on 01/01/2019 12:21 am
Not illegal, just against policy. You can do all the free clerical and thought work you want as long as you don’t incur government commitment to pay you or someone else later for what you did.
And no one has ever been charged for working unpaid unless they were selling secrets or profiting someone other than the government by it.
So I think it is an urban legends.
I believe you are incorrect.
First, see the OPM FAQ on Government shutdown here (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf). Page 6 points you to "31 U.S. Code § 1342 - Limitation on voluntary services"QuoteAn officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.
If you'd like some history on why this prohibition on voluntary (yes, even "free clerical and thought") work exists, this excellent article from The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-odd-story-of-the-law-that-dictates-how-government-shutdowns-work/280047/) contains a history on the tug of war between the legislative and executive branches that brought us to it.
Edit/Lar:Soften
kessdawg you are correct. All of us at KSC received an email from Center Director Cabana reminding us that all NASA & Civil Service employees were forbidden to use any government devices (cell phones, laptops, etc) during a shutdown.
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/01/2019 12:36 am
Not illegal, just against policy. You can do all the free clerical and thought work you want as long as you don’t incur government commitment to pay you or someone else later for what you did.
And no one has ever been charged for working unpaid unless they were selling secrets or profiting someone other than the government by it.
So I think it is an urban legends.
I believe you are incorrect.
First, see the OPM FAQ on Government shutdown here (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf). Page 6 points you to "31 U.S. Code § 1342 - Limitation on voluntary services"QuoteAn officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.
If you'd like some history on why this prohibition on voluntary (yes, even "free clerical and thought") work exists, this excellent article from The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-odd-story-of-the-law-that-dictates-how-government-shutdowns-work/280047/) contains a history on the tug of war between the legislative and executive branches that brought us to it.
Edit/Lar:Soften
kessdawg you are correct. All of us at KSC received an email from Center Director Cabana reminding us that all NASA & Civil Service employees were forbidden to use any government devices (cell phones, laptops, etc) during a shutdown.
We received such an e-mail at the Smithsonian and it was probably composed from the same base text. Our furloughs would begin January 2--there were sufficient non-Federal FY2019 funds to "stay open" from December 22 through January 1.
During the furlough, we're locked out of our own (Federal) buildings. (There are exceptions for Smithsonian Protection Services officers and the like--"essential" personnel.)
And those rules apply for furloughed Federal AND (Smithsonian) Trust Fund employees.
Post by: AC in NC on 01/01/2019 02:06 am
Post by: gongora on 01/01/2019 02:51 pm
Post by: joseph.a.navin on 01/01/2019 06:46 pm
Also, will SpaceX be using one of the old firing rooms for DM1 and beyond for LC-39A ops?
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/01/2019 07:03 pm
I have a question. Will the new flight crews starting with DM-2 utilize crew quarters like the shuttle and Apollo crews did before? Since NASA is paying for the flight and are in charge of flight planning I would suspect they would still use crew quarters.Already answered previously. Yes and yes. LCC FR-4. FR-4 is nowadays known as CLCC and can operate upto 5 separate missions at a time. FR-4 serves as the Commercial Launch Control Center for all Commercial launches from 39A, 39B (if ever), 39C, and select CCAFS/SF pads. NASA and NGIS will use FR-1 through FR-3 for their ML based operations.
Also, will SpaceX be using one of the old firing rooms for DM1 and beyond for LC-39A ops?
Post by: ChrisC on 01/01/2019 10:38 pm
will SpaceX be using one of the old firing rooms for DM1 and beyond for LC-39A ops?
Also Hans mentioned use of Firing Room 4 in the CRS-16 prelaunch briefing here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46901.msg1883491#msg1883491
Here's the video. I don't know when exactly Hans says it, but probably in the Q+A section at end, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was in response to a ChrisG question :)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fNPkYbJj1R0
Post by: kdhilliard on 01/01/2019 11:10 pm
Also Hans mentioned use of Firing Room 4 in the CRS-16 prelaunch briefing here: ...It was in response to a question from Stephen Clark of Spaceflight Now at 24:05 in the video (https://youtube.com/watch?v=fNPkYbJj1R0&t=1445).
From theinternetftw's wonderful transcript (https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/1bf10faf24e5a77e46fad279e8b81f10):
Quote
Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX: The Launch Control Formerly Known As Firing Room 4 has been used on I think our last mission here from the Cape. It was very successful. I personally enjoy the place. There's a great view of the pad when you launch from 39. We launch from 40 here and we're quite ready to use it, so we're not going to use it this time. Going forward, we will use Launch Control Formerly Known As Firing Room 4 more and more. It's a great place. Also closer to this room. So not for this time but going forward yes.
Post by: yg1968 on 01/02/2019 07:05 pm
No more offtopic discussion of what federal employees are allowed to do during the shutdown. Especially, no more complaints from SpaceX fans that NASA employees should just ignore the regulations and go back to work because SpaceX fans want them to.
As a side note, government shutdown discussions would be on topic in this thread (IMO):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47037.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/03/2019 12:36 pm
If you're in the area with a camera, post photos in here.
Post by: RotoSequence on 01/03/2019 12:47 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/03/2019 01:04 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1080826965093990400
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/03/2019 02:00 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1080840601631891461
Post by: mn on 01/03/2019 02:11 pm
Just posting in case nobody noticed the change without any posts telling us of the change.
(I guess we sort of knew it was going to change, so is it official now?)
Post by: Brovane on 01/03/2019 02:24 pm
So the thread title just changed from Jan 17 to late January
Just posting in case nobody noticed the change without any posts telling us of the change.
(I guess we sort of knew it was going to change, so is it official now?)
I think it is official as it is going to get until the government shutdown is over.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/03/2019 04:27 pm
https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/1080871439362863104
Post by: ejb749 on 01/03/2019 05:00 pm
Post by: rpapo on 01/03/2019 05:24 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)And for those who didn't quite see how one side of the trunk was photocells, and the other side white, now we have a picture showing half-and-half.
Post by: soltasto on 01/03/2019 07:03 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
It also looks like all the hold down clamps are attached, while for past F9 launches post FH some of them were removed. Can't discern the TSMs tho.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/03/2019 07:19 pm
https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1080920902232039424
Post by: jpo234 on 01/03/2019 07:53 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
Post by: kevinof on 01/03/2019 08:06 pm
Post by: Ciro1983811 on 01/03/2019 08:12 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)And for those who didn't quite see how one side of the trunk was photocells, and the other side white, now we have a picture showing half-and-half.
And actually, the white side is heat radiators! clever solution! you point the solar panel side toward the sun, and the radiator side is automatically pointed away from sun ...! optimize energy production and heat management!
Post by: jpo234 on 01/03/2019 08:17 pm
..but their usual procedure these days is to do the static fire without the payload. Why change?
But usually they don't mate the payload with the booster before the static fire, do they?
Post by: kevinof on 01/03/2019 08:20 pm
..but their usual procedure these days is to do the static fire without the payload. Why change?
But usually they don't mate the payload with the booster before the static fire, do they?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/03/2019 08:22 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
They are only doing fit checks on this rollout. No propellant will be loaded.
And I would assume they will use their standard process of doing static fire when they actually do it, which will not have the payload mounted.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/03/2019 08:37 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Post by: Comga on 01/03/2019 08:56 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle? (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.
Post by: drnscr on 01/03/2019 09:04 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle? (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle? Shuttle Flight Readiness Firings
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/03/2019 09:06 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle? (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.
Per Teslarati, which is usually reliable. (Eric Ralph is vaporcobra here on NSF)
"A little over three weeks away from the milestone mission’s launch, SpaceX has – even more importantly – rolled Pad 39A’s transporter/erector (T/E) into an on-site hangar, where Falcon 9 B1051 and Crew Dragon C201 are awaiting final integration and fit checks prior to a series of careful dress rehearsals including a dry (mission) rehearsal, a wet rehearsal (WDR), and an on-pad static fire."
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-orbit-ready-crew-dragon-pad-39a-falcon-9-testing/
Post by: Mammutti on 01/03/2019 09:42 pm
https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/1080961376733007872
Post by: jpo234 on 01/03/2019 10:15 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle? (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.
Summary: We don't know yet.
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/03/2019 10:38 pm
Yes Flight Readiness Firing (static fire) on STS-1 Columbia.(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle? (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.
Summary: We don't know yet.
Post by: DaveS on 01/03/2019 10:53 pm
And all the other orbiters. The FRF was a required test for all new orbiters to pass before they were allowed to fly for the first time. Challenger and Discovery even underwent two FRFs each for various reasons (Challenger due to hydrogen leaks and Discovery to recertify procedures and hardware prior to RTF after STS-51L).Yes Flight Readiness Firing (static fire) on STS-1 Columbia.(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle? (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.
Summary: We don't know yet.
Post by: RonM on 01/03/2019 10:59 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Better remove Crew Dragon before the wet launch rehearsal. AMOS-6 accident was during fueling for the static fire.
Post by: soltasto on 01/03/2019 11:08 pm
(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Better remove Crew Dragon before the wet launch rehearsal. AMOS-6 accident was during fueling for the static fire.
I bet they will leave it on since if it explodes losing that Dragon isn't going to be the biggest problem.
Post by: joek on 01/03/2019 11:12 pm
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Or they might add a couple steps... complete 3-4 without Dragon; repeat 3-4 with Dragon. Also, unless they demate Dragon at an intermediate point, that implies Dragon is loaded with hypergols throughout those steps. That may complicate some earlier steps.
Post by: mme on 01/03/2019 11:21 pm
They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them....
Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.
Better remove Crew Dragon before the wet launch rehearsal. AMOS-6 accident was during fueling for the static fire.
Post by: joek on 01/03/2019 11:33 pm
They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them.
Every fuel load cycle helps meet ASAP/NASA's requirements, reduce risk and assuage concerns, regardless of whether a payload is attached. IIRC the requirement specific to risk reduction for the new COPV is 6-7 cycles (not launches)? Not sure where we are (or will be) on that count before the final DM1 load & launch. Anyone keeping count?
Post by: joek on 01/03/2019 11:55 pm
They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them.
True, and I am sure SpaceX is confident of the design. At the risk of overstating the obvious... the way to build confidence in the design is to test it... and just because you are confident of X does not necessarily warrant risking X+Y.
In any case, from the perspective of an integrated stack, the new variable is Dragon. I expect we will see it demated at some point prior after a number of LV+Dragon checks have been performed and prior to launch for hypergol loading (and likely a few other final Dragon checks).
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/04/2019 12:45 am
They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them.
Every fuel load cycle helps meet ASAP/NASA's requirements, reduce risk and assuage concerns, regardless of whether a payload is attached. IIRC the requirement specific to risk reduction for the new COPV is 6-7 cycles (not launches)? Not sure where we are (or will be) on that count before the final DM1 load & launch. Anyone keeping count?
Oh great... this again... 7 missions with new COPV's and 5 loading cycles that will be on the Static Fire and launch of DM-1 and IFA and the static fire for DM-2. The missions with the new COPV's can be on whatever mission they want, the loading cycles for crewed misions are different than for uncrewed ones so the process will be qualified using the 5 opportunities I mentioned earlier.
Post by: envy887 on 01/04/2019 01:10 am
They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them.
Every fuel load cycle helps meet ASAP/NASA's requirements, reduce risk and assuage concerns, regardless of whether a payload is attached. IIRC the requirement specific to risk reduction for the new COPV is 6-7 cycles (not launches)? Not sure where we are (or will be) on that count before the final DM1 load & launch. Anyone keeping count?
Oh great... this again... 7 missions with new COPV's and 5 loading cycles that will be on the Static Fire and launch of DM-1 and IFA and the static fire for DM-2. The missions with the new COPV's can be on whatever mission they want, the loading cycles for crewed misions are different than for uncrewed ones so the process will be qualified using the 5 opportunities I mentioned earlier.
WDRs should count as additional fueling cycles for COPV and load-and-go purposes, right? That would give them 3 cycles on just this mission
Post by: Mike_1179 on 01/04/2019 01:22 am
At some point, won’t they have to fill it with cold stuff then swing the arm onto a Dragon to make sure it fits? If they plan to do it before the DM-1 launch countdown, they’ll have to fuel it at least once with a Dragon on top.
Post by: Scylla on 01/04/2019 02:19 am
New top to the TEL.
Any idea what the new bits do?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/04/2019 04:04 am
SpaceX - First Ever Crew Dragon Lift - DM-1 01-03-2019
USLaunchReport
Published on Jan 3, 2019
Speed has been doubled. Sorry for picture quality, 10 miles thru haze at sunset. Very Excited to see Crew Dragon attached to Falcon 9. The lift was done for a fit test.
youtube.com/watch?v=o_Wt9tpfyAs
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/04/2019 04:08 am
Better remove Crew Dragon before the wet launch rehearsal. AMOS-6 accident was during fueling for the static fire.
Unlike AMOS 6, Dragon 2 can perform a pad abort if the vehicle were to fail during fuelling or the test fire. Thus, if SpaceX were to have a bad day, they can perform a valuable test of the Dragon 2 abort system. The Soyuz abort system got plenty of these "tests" done while being flown on Proton and N-1!
Post by: 1 on 01/04/2019 04:30 am
For some reason, you can see a ghostly image of the photographer during the lift of Falcon 9.
Looks like they're shooting from behind a window. Inside a vehicle, perhaps?
I can hardly wait to see the official pics of this on the pad.
Post by: catdlr on 01/04/2019 04:54 am
For some reason, you can see a ghostly image of the photographer during the lift of Falcon 9.
Looks like they're shooting from behind a window. Inside a vehicle, perhaps?
I can hardly wait to see the official pics of this on the pad.
Yea almost looks like they shot this thru a vehicle window who's tinting has faded to a purplish color.
Post by: woods170 on 01/04/2019 06:44 am
Blown up from the tweet from Emre Kelly upthread.
New top to the TEL.
Any idea what the new bits do?
The new bits serve (amongst others) the same purpose as the service mast that was seen in images of the Pad Abort test. There will be T-0 umbilicals running from the top of the TEL to the vehicle.
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/04/2019 07:33 am
They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them.
Every fuel load cycle helps meet ASAP/NASA's requirements, reduce risk and assuage concerns, regardless of whether a payload is attached. IIRC the requirement specific to risk reduction for the new COPV is 6-7 cycles (not launches)? Not sure where we are (or will be) on that count before the final DM1 load & launch. Anyone keeping count?
Oh great... this again... 7 missions with new COPV's and 5 loading cycles that will be on the Static Fire and launch of DM-1 and IFA and the static fire for DM-2. The missions with the new COPV's can be on whatever mission they want, the loading cycles for crewed misions are different than for uncrewed ones so the process will be qualified using the 5 opportunities I mentioned earlier.
WDRs should count as additional fueling cycles for COPV and load-and-go purposes, right? That would give them 3 cycles on just this mission
From all we know from public info, the loading cycles that are going to count are the ones that I described earlier. Anyways, the WDR's will always be good to do to record as much data as they can.
Post by: photonic on 01/04/2019 08:21 am
[...]Are there any precedents for launching a spacecraft with solar panels exposed to the weather during launch? All the examples I can think of were protected by a fairing or protective covers (as for cargo dragon). Do they use the equivalent of the hardened Tesla solar roof tiles?
And for those who didn't quite see how one side of the trunk was photocells, and the other side white, now we have a picture showing half-and-half.
Post by: woods170 on 01/04/2019 08:42 am
[...]Are there any precedents for launching a spacecraft with solar panels exposed to the weather during launch? All the examples I can think of were protected by a fairing or protective covers (as for cargo dragon). Do they use the equivalent of the hardened Tesla solar roof tiles?
And for those who didn't quite see how one side of the trunk was photocells, and the other side white, now we have a picture showing half-and-half.
It might be something similar. It has been suggested, but not confirmed that the solar cells on the thrunk are entirely covered by a transparent resin, thus protecting them from the elements.
Edit: found the answer in a conversation with a source some time ago: The individual solar cells themselves are arranged in pre-determined groups and fastened to a carrier panel. They are then coated over with weather-resistant and aero-heating resistant transparent coating. The top coating is entirely smooth.
So, the panels with solar cells have at least 3 layers:
1. Carrier panel
2. Solar cells
3. Top coating
There are many of these panels, in several shapes and sizes, all developed to fit the available surfaces of the trunk. Most of the panels have a slight curve, to match the curve of the trunk.
The panels are bolted to the trunk structure.
Post by: cd-slam on 01/05/2019 08:52 am
Post by: marsbase on 01/05/2019 09:08 am
Saw the article showing splashdown in the Atlantic. It seems a strange choice given refurbishment will presumably be done at Hawthorne. Any reason for this choice?This spacecraft will be used in the demonstration of in-flight abort from 39-A. Maybe the required refurbishment is minimal.
Post by: kevinof on 01/05/2019 09:14 am
Saw the article showing splashdown in the Atlantic. It seems a strange choice given refurbishment will presumably be done at Hawthorne. Any reason for this choice?
Post by: theonlyspace on 01/05/2019 01:03 pm
Post by: Nightstalker89 on 01/05/2019 01:07 pm
Post by: yg1968 on 01/05/2019 02:04 pm
Post by: sghill on 01/05/2019 02:42 pm
IMHO, it's epic sci-fi, but this image is real!
I love the stark loneliness of the walkway. So much technology and power, and the efforts of thousands of people all at work in this image. Yet the astronauts will have to embark down that long hallway nearly alone.
Reminds me of the quiet scene in "Contact" where Dr. Arroway is walking towards the second capsule in Japan with the two technicians...
Post by: dave45 on 01/05/2019 03:00 pm
Post by: Barrie on 01/05/2019 03:01 pm
I can't get enough of this picture of the extended walkway.
IMHO, it's epic sci-fi, but this image is real!
I love the stark loneliness of the walkway. So much technology and power, and the efforts of thousands of people all at work in this image. Yet the astronauts will have to embark down that long hallway nearly alone.
My reaction is "This is no makeshift contraption for use maybe twice a year. This is passenger transport infrastructure, meant for routine use"
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/05/2019 03:11 pm
Saw the article showing splashdown in the Atlantic. It seems a strange choice given refurbishment will presumably be done at Hawthorne. Any reason for this choice?
And that's why they're building a Dragon 2 refurbishment facility at the Cape.
Post by: Tomness on 01/05/2019 06:33 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1081459477100941313QuoteAbout a month away from the first orbital test flight of crew Dragon
Post by: king1999 on 01/05/2019 06:37 pm
I can't get enough of this picture of the extended walkway.I am pretty sure that the flight attendants will welcome them on board by the door of the Dragon. ;D
IMHO, it's epic sci-fi, but this image is real!
I love the stark loneliness of the walkway. So much technology and power, and the efforts of thousands of people all at work in this image. Yet the astronauts will have to embark down that long hallway nearly alone.
Reminds me of the quiet scene in "Contact" where Dr. Arroway is walking towards the second capsule in Japan with the two technicians...
Post by: jpo234 on 01/05/2019 08:48 pm
This is passenger transport infrastructure, meant for routine use"
As far as SpaceX is concerned, this will be legacy within 2 or 3 years. They want to fly passengers around the Moon in 4 years...
Post by: bulkmail on 01/05/2019 09:06 pm
Now that dry dress rehearsal is underway (or completed?), the next major events are:
- wet dress rehearsal (WDR) - does it need NASA personnel?
- static fire - this static fire will count for the 5 certification runs, so does it need NASA personnel - or they can review the data afterwards when government shutdown ends?
- launch
Basically my question is how far can SpaceX go on their own during the government shutdown?
Post by: Norm38 on 01/05/2019 10:01 pm
NASA wants a new Dragon 2 each mission, it doesn't mean SpaceX isn't going to reuse them for something else. Maybe cargo missions or free flight missions.
What’s funny is we had this exact same discussion in 2010 about Dragon 1. And NASA eventually accepted reused Dragon1. They’ll take reused Dragon2s, in time.
I just hope this is the last time for this. It’s all reuse from here on out.
Post by: matthewkantar on 01/05/2019 11:34 pm
Post by: gongora on 01/05/2019 11:57 pm
Post by: penguin44 on 01/06/2019 05:20 am
Post by: cferreir on 01/06/2019 06:11 pm
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 01/06/2019 07:25 pm
I recall NASA being quoted on these forums as stating that it was SpaceX that only proposed new Dragons for each mission. I presume that was because they didn't want initial flights held up by the rectal exam that will be recertification procedures and validation thereof.NASA wants a new Dragon 2 each mission, it doesn't mean SpaceX isn't going to reuse them for something else. Maybe cargo missions or free flight missions.
What’s funny is we had this exact same discussion in 2010 about Dragon 1. And NASA eventually accepted reused Dragon1. They’ll take reused Dragon2s, in time.
Post by: joek on 01/06/2019 07:47 pm
I recall NASA being quoted on these forums as stating that it was SpaceX that only proposed new Dragons for each mission. I presume that was because they didn't want initial flights held up by the rectal exam that will be recertification procedures and validation thereof.NASA wants a new Dragon 2 each mission, it doesn't mean SpaceX isn't going to reuse them for something else. Maybe cargo missions or free flight missions.What’s funny is we had this exact same discussion in 2010 about Dragon 1. And NASA eventually accepted reused Dragon1. They’ll take reused Dragon2s, in time.
Yes, we did have a similar discussion (several times)...
NASA did not require a new Dragon for each CRS mission; NASA wanted a firm price. It was too early to make a commitment to refurb Dragon pricing--too many unknowns. The safe-conservative path was to price based on new Dragon for each mission. (That was briefly articulated during one of the early CRS post-mission press conferences, but I cannot find the reference.)
Eventually they worked it out to everyone's satisfaction for CRS. Presumably same will happen with Crew Dragon (and Starliner). Expect they have a better handle on what refurb will entail with Crew Dragon, but nailing down the details is likely a low priority at this time.
Post by: rpapo on 01/06/2019 07:51 pm
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/06/2019 08:00 pm
I recall NASA being quoted on these forums as stating that it was SpaceX that only proposed new Dragons for each mission. I presume that was because they didn't want initial flights held up by the rectal exam that will be recertification procedures and validation thereof.NASA wants a new Dragon 2 each mission, it doesn't mean SpaceX isn't going to reuse them for something else. Maybe cargo missions or free flight missions.What’s funny is we had this exact same discussion in 2010 about Dragon 1. And NASA eventually accepted reused Dragon1. They’ll take reused Dragon2s, in time.
Yes, we did have a similar discussion (several times)...
NASA did not require a new Dragon for each CRS mission; NASA wanted a firm price. It was too early to make a commitment to refurb Dragon pricing--too many unknowns. The safe-conservative path was to price based on new Dragon for each mission. (That was briefly articulated during one of the early CRS post-mission press conferences, but I cannot find the reference.)
Eventually they worked it out to everyone's satisfaction for CRS. Presumably same will happen with Crew Dragon (and Starliner). Expect they have a better handle on what refurb will entail with Crew Dragon, but nailing down the details is likely a low priority at this time.
No, Starliner won't need satisfaction of anyone over time, Boeing will start reusing their capsules right from the beginning, they're being certified to up to 10 uses. The first Boeing crew rotation mission will use the capsule from the uncrewed test flight.
Post by: kevinof on 01/06/2019 08:08 pm
Credit: Elon Musk on Twitter. There was no accompanying text.
Post by: rpapo on 01/06/2019 08:11 pm
I assumed that, and expected that everybody here would figure that out too. Though I was confused for a little bit by the vertical orientation of the capsule door. Until I compared it with another Dragon 2 image (in fact, the very one you posted above).Credit: Elon Musk on Twitter. There was no accompanying text.That is the Dragon 2 from the arm.
Post by: Comga on 01/06/2019 09:02 pm
Credit: Elon Musk on Twitter. There was no accompanying text.... because it never pays to explain a joke.
Post by: joek on 01/06/2019 09:55 pm
No, Starliner won't need satisfaction of anyone over time, ...
Good for them; thanks. Let's hope SpaceX gets it figured out reasonably soon given water landings.
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 01/06/2019 10:37 pm
No, Starliner won't need satisfaction of anyone over time, Boeing will start reusing their capsules right from the beginning, they're being certified to up to 10 uses. The first Boeing crew rotation mission will use the capsule from the uncrewed test flight.Note, the "over time" is the key portion of that statement. By proposing all new Dragons SpaceX deferred any work on certifying used capsules. By proposing immediate capsule reuse, Boeing will need to satisfy NASA of their recertification procedures from the start, as part of their overall certification effort. And since their first crewed flight is a reused capsule, any deficiencies found in that procedure has potential to delay their first astronauts.
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/06/2019 10:52 pm
No, Starliner won't need satisfaction of anyone over time, Boeing will start reusing their capsules right from the beginning, they're being certified to up to 10 uses. The first Boeing crew rotation mission will use the capsule from the uncrewed test flight.Note, the "over time" is the key portion of that statement. By proposing all new Dragons SpaceX deferred any work on certifying used capsules. By proposing immediate capsule reuse, Boeing will need to satisfy NASA of their recertification procedures from the start, as part of their overall certification effort. And since their first crewed flight is a reused capsule, any deficiencies found in that procedure has potential to delay their first astronauts.
The first crewed flight for Boeing will be on a new capsule, their second crewed flight which will be their first crew rotation mission will use the reused capsule. They will have some time considering there may be at least 1 year or more between the first use of the capsule and its second use. Anyways, this is for DM-1, not Boeing's Starliner... it's my fault
Post by: joek on 01/06/2019 10:53 pm
Note, the "over time" is the key portion of that statement. By proposing all new Dragons SpaceX deferred any work on certifying used capsules. By proposing immediate capsule reuse, Boeing will need to satisfy NASA of their recertification procedures from the start, as part of their overall certification effort. And since their first crewed flight is a reused capsule, any deficiencies found in that procedure has potential to delay their first astronauts.
Good point. They will not know what needs to be done until they get one back. Which introduces cost and schedule risk. Let's hope and expect everyone has done their homework and that the impact is minimal.
Post by: niwax on 01/07/2019 12:13 am
Note, the "over time" is the key portion of that statement. By proposing all new Dragons SpaceX deferred any work on certifying used capsules. By proposing immediate capsule reuse, Boeing will need to satisfy NASA of their recertification procedures from the start, as part of their overall certification effort. And since their first crewed flight is a reused capsule, any deficiencies found in that procedure has potential to delay their first astronauts.
Good point. They will not know what needs to be done until they get one back. Which introduces cost and schedule risk. Let's hope and expect everyone has done their homework and that the impact is minimal.
SpaceX also happens to hold resupply contract they can use reused capsules on - so there is no rush to shut down the production line after the first three or so. They have the business to keep quite a few capsules in rotation.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/07/2019 08:13 am
Post by: woods170 on 01/07/2019 08:43 am
Photoshop? I've enhanced the image which is an overall purplish colour, while the sign is more orange coloured. I don't see a reflection of the pole on the ground, lilke I can see with the side rails. There's also no shadow behind the sign.
Could be. Still funny though.
Post by: jpo234 on 01/07/2019 10:03 am
Photoshop? I've enhanced the image which is an overall purplish colour, while the sign is more orange coloured. I don't see a reflection of the pole on the ground, lilke I can see with the side rails. There's also no shadow behind the sign.
Seems to be from here: http://www.johnriggins.com/Blog/You-must-be-at-least-this-tall-to-ride
Post by: webdan on 01/07/2019 10:19 am
That is the Dragon 2 from the arm.Credit: Elon Musk on Twitter. There was no accompanying text.
This is the view from within an anechoic chamber
Post by: kevinof on 01/07/2019 10:22 am
That is the Dragon 2 from the arm.Credit: Elon Musk on Twitter. There was no accompanying text.
This is the view from within an anechoic chamber
Post by: Comga on 01/07/2019 01:47 pm
Photoshop? I've enhanced the image which is an overall purplish colour, while the sign is more orange coloured. I don't see a reflection of the pole on the ground, lilke I can see with the side rails. There's also no shadow behind the sign.
1 No Stephen. The carnival sign is real. It’s the rest of this so called “manned spaceflight” stuff that’s photoshopped. Next thing you’re going to tell us is people really walked on the Moon. 😉
2 Even photoshopping in the carnival ride sign is sufficient “poking the bear”. Do you think Musk would have someone carry the sign through KSC and up the FSS?
3 Nice find jpo234. Google reverse image search is our friend.
4 Repeat: It never pays to explain a joke.
And before this goes further into the realm of the party thread, Happy New Year and best wishes to all.😁
Post by: mainmind on 01/07/2019 03:26 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/spacex-demo-flight-a-month-away-will-be-especially-dangerous-musk-says/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/spacex-demo-flight-a-month-away-will-be-especially-dangerous-musk-says/)
Quote
SpaceX demo flight a month away, will be “especially dangerous,” Musk says
"Early flights are especially dangerous, as there’s a lot of new hardware."
-Eric Berger
Post by: Lar on 01/07/2019 04:47 pm
I wonder if the launch will push past the net than February announcement?My interpretation of Elon's tweet ... "about a month away" means early feb now for DM-1. Darn it.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1081459477100941313QuoteAbout a month away from the first orbital test flight of crew Dragon
Post by: Comga on 01/10/2019 03:40 pm
Quote
NASA and SpaceX are continuing to work on the activities leading toward the Demo-1, uncrewed flight test to the International Space Station. NASA and SpaceX are now targeting no earlier than February for the launch of Demo-1 to complete hardware testing and joint reviews. NASA and SpaceX will confirm a new target date after coordination with the Eastern Range and the International Space Station Program.
Author Anna Heiney
Posted on January 10, 2019
Categories Commercial Spaceflight, International Space Station, Kennedy Space Center, NASA, SpaceX
So how is it possible that someone at NASA is even posting during the shutdown, never mind “continuing to work on the activities leading towards the Demo-1”?
This would be great if true.
Edit: link added, quote corrected
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/10/2019 04:48 pm
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/01/10/spacex-demo-1-launch-update/QuoteNASA and SpaceX are continuing to work on the activities leading toward the Demo-1, uncrewed flight test to the International Space Station. NASA and SpaceX are now targeting no earlier than February for the launch of Demo-1 to complete hardware testing and joint reviews. NASA and SpaceX will confirm a new target date after coordination with the Eastern Range and the International Space Station Program.
Author Anna Heiney
Posted on January 10, 2019
Categories Commercial Spaceflight, International Space Station, Kennedy Space Center, NASA, SpaceX
So how is it possible that someone at NASA is even posting during the shutdown, never mind “continuing to work on the activities leading towards the Demo-1”?
This would be great if true.
Edit: link added, quote corrected
Anna Heiney is KSC's lead Public Affairs Writer. Per her LinkedIn profile, she does not work directly for NASA, she works for ASRC Federal, which is a government contractor, but it is owned by an Alaskan native American tribe, so I would presume she's not affected by the shutdown.
Post by: Comga on 01/10/2019 04:57 pm
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/01/10/spacex-demo-1-launch-update/ (https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/01/10/spacex-demo-1-launch-update/)QuoteNASA and SpaceX are continuing to work on the activities leading toward the Demo-1, uncrewed flight test to the International Space Station. NASA and SpaceX are now targeting no earlier than February for the launch of Demo-1 to complete hardware testing and joint reviews. NASA and SpaceX will confirm a new target date after coordination with the Eastern Range and the International Space Station Program.
Author Anna Heiney
Posted on January 10, 2019
Categories Commercial Spaceflight, International Space Station, Kennedy Space Center, NASA, SpaceX
So how is it possible that someone at NASA is even posting during the shutdown, never mind “continuing to work on the activities leading towards the Demo-1”?
This would be great if true.
Anna Heiney is KSC's lead Public Affairs Writer. Per her LinkedIn profile, she does not work directly for NASA, she works for ASRC Federal, which is a government contractor, but it is owned by an Alaskan native American tribe, so I would presume she's not affected by the shutdown.
That’s excellent internet sleuthing, but it begs the question of what she is posting about and why, even how.
Not only are support contractors not being allowed to work at NASA centers and sites, but they have little to no chance of getting the back pay that federal workers always have gotten after past shutdowns.
And still, what is the “continuing work” of which she posts?
Post by: joseph.a.navin on 01/10/2019 05:08 pm
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/10/2019 05:15 pm
I am a staff writer for a high school newspaper, I am attempting to write a news article on the DM-1 mission. However, the shutdown has complicated things obviously. If you could guess, would the launch occur probably mid-February or early February if one could guess?
It's entirely dependent on what NASA gets funding to reopen. And that is dependent on when President Trump decides to make a deal with the House and Senate.
The more interesting question to me is how soon after NASA opens back up that SpaceX will be ready to launch. SpaceX had thought they would be ready by mid-January, so assuming the shutdown is already affecting the NASA side of the activities necessary to support the DM-1 launch, how much time does NASA need to catch up?
Other complications are also the Visiting Vehicle schedule, and there are times during the ISS orbit where no vehicle fly because of the orientation of the ISS orbit to the Sun - I forget what that is called, but these are all factors to be considered with every flight.
Post by: gongora on 01/10/2019 05:16 pm
I am a staff writer for a high school newspaper, I am attempting to write a news article on the DM-1 mission. However, the shutdown has complicated things obviously. If you could guess, would the launch occur probably mid-February or early February if one could guess?
We don't know.
Post by: gongora on 01/10/2019 05:21 pm
Quote
Asked whether the shutdown was fully or partially responsible for the delays, SpaceX spokeswoman Eva Behrend told SpacePolicyOnline.com today that “SpaceX is assessing any impacts of the partial government shutdown to our commercial launches. NASA continues to support Commercial Crew Program operations as we move toward our first demonstration mission of Crew Dragon next month.”
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1083426862171340805
Quote
Replying to @SpcPlcyOnline
Good report Marcia. From my limited insight on this, the majority of the delay is due to technical issues. But as you say, difficult to determine for sure.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/10/2019 05:28 pm
I am a staff writer for a high school newspaper, I am attempting to write a news article on the DM-1 mission. However, the shutdown has complicated things obviously. If you could guess, would the launch occur probably mid-February or early February if one could guess?
And some other info:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-spacex-commercial-crew-test-flight-to-february/
Post by: rsdavis9 on 01/10/2019 08:06 pm
Other complications are also the Visiting Vehicle schedule, and there are times during the ISS orbit where no vehicle fly because of the orientation of the ISS orbit to the Sun -QuoteI forget what that is called, but these are all factors to be considered with every flight.
High beta?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_angle
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/11/2019 12:15 am
I am a staff writer for a high school newspaper, I am attempting to write a news article on the DM-1 mission.
Joseph, if you could, please post a link to your article in this discussion thread when it is published? I think many members here will be interested to read an article written by a fellow NSF member.
Good luck!
Post by: joseph.a.navin on 01/12/2019 11:20 pm
ISS 20th anniversary and MS-10:
https://pfhstheroar.com/6736/news/international-cooperation-continues-on-board-the-international-space-station-in-spite-of-the-recent-soyuz-ms-10-launch-abort/ (https://pfhstheroar.com/6736/news/international-cooperation-continues-on-board-the-international-space-station-in-spite-of-the-recent-soyuz-ms-10-launch-abort/)
InSight touchdown:
https://pfhstheroar.com/6805/news/our-insight-into-mars/ (https://pfhstheroar.com/6805/news/our-insight-into-mars/)
Voyager-2:
https://pfhstheroar.com/6895/news/voyager-2-enters-interstellar-space/ (https://pfhstheroar.com/6895/news/voyager-2-enters-interstellar-space/)
VSS Unity:
https://pfhstheroar.com/6917/news/virgin-galactics-v-s-s-unity-reaches-space/ (https://pfhstheroar.com/6917/news/virgin-galactics-v-s-s-unity-reaches-space/)
I will share with you on this thread my article about DM-1 too!
Enjoy
Post by: Alvian@IDN on 01/14/2019 03:32 pm
Quote
Demo-1 is targeting no earlier than Feb. 9 for launch, a source at KSC tells me.https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1083416394610274304
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/14/2019 06:34 pm
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
Quote
The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral will launch the first Crew Dragon space capsule on an uncrewed demonstration mission, DM-1, to the ISS from pad 39A on February 9 at the very earliest. The launch time is around 11am EST if this timeframe and gets 22-26 minutes earlier each day. The launch window is instantaneous.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/14/2019 06:48 pm
Other complications are also the Visiting Vehicle schedule, and there are times during the ISS orbit where no vehicle fly because of the orientation of the ISS orbit to the Sun -QuoteI forget what that is called, but these are all factors to be considered with every flight.
High beta?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_angle
And just for consideration, the next high Beta angle period is in February. The 13-19.
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/14/2019 07:11 pm
Other complications are also the Visiting Vehicle schedule, and there are times during the ISS orbit where no vehicle fly because of the orientation of the ISS orbit to the Sun -QuoteI forget what that is called, but these are all factors to be considered with every flight.
High beta?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_angle
And just for consideration, the next high Beta angle period is in February. The 13-19.
So if the launch slips past February 13th, the next opportunity would be on February 20th, right?
Post by: gongora on 01/14/2019 07:15 pm
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/14/2019 07:20 pm
Post by: Comga on 01/14/2019 07:34 pm
True... If they're going with a 2-day rendezvous then the latest launch date before the high beta angle period would then be on February 10th (just one day after the supposedly current launch date with docking on February 12th). The earliest launch date after the beta angle period would then be February 18th (with docking on the 20th).
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the first Dragon 1 flight to the ISS (COTS-2/3?) include practicing autonomously aborting and retreating? If these are included, and it seems highly likely, NASA will have to go through some sort of formal approval before they can be used on terminal guidance. Heaven only knows what other test they will conduct and need the results of to get approved before actually going in to dock. Since it could take them two days to catch up to the ISS given a launch not specifically set up for quick rendezvous, it hardly seems like a two day approach. And I can't imagine them going into this with a backup day a week away.
That would hint at a NET Feb 17 launch.
"Musk Time" on steroids!
(Appropriate as NASA is the only organization that still thinks "on steroids" is a good thing. ;) )
I wish I had kept track of all the prospective launch dates.
This would be a GREAT time to see one of those FPIPs to see what else is going on at the ISS.
Edit: The Dragon for COTS-2+ was captured on Flight Day 4. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28970.msg904838#msg904838)
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/14/2019 07:50 pm
True... If they're going with a 2-day rendezvous then the latest launch date before the high beta angle period would then be on February 10th (just one day after the supposedly current launch date with docking on February 12th). The earliest launch date after the beta angle period would then be February 18th (with docking on the 20th).
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the first Dragon 1 flight to the ISS (COTS-2/3?) include practicing autonomously aborting and retreating? If these are included, and it seems highly likely, NASA will have to go through some sort of formal approval before they can be used on terminal guidance. Heaven only knows what other test they will conduct and need the results of to get approved before actually going in to dock. Since it could take them two days to catch up to the ISS given a launch not specifically set up for quick rendezvous, it hardly seems like a two day approach. And I can't imagine them going into this with a backup day a week away.
That would hint at a NET Feb 17 launch.
"Musk Time" on steroids!
(Appropriate as NASA is the only organization that still thinks "on steroids" is a good thing. ;) )
I wish I had kept track of all the prospective launch dates.
This would be a GREAT time to see one of those FPIPs to see what else is going on at the ISS.
Edit: The Dragon for COTS-2+ was captured on Flight Day 4. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28970.msg904838#msg904838)
I don't think they're going to go that way of retreating and then docking the next day. I think they'll just make the rendezvous and docking procedure more lengthy to test everything step by step so everything is checked out for DM-2. While a normal docking may last about 30min like Soyuz, I could see this first one going on for more than an hour but not something like for COTS 2+ where they went back and then captured it on the next day.
Post by: envy887 on 01/14/2019 08:28 pm
True... If they're going with a 2-day rendezvous then the latest launch date before the high beta angle period would then be on February 10th (just one day after the supposedly current launch date with docking on February 12th). The earliest launch date after the beta angle period would then be February 18th (with docking on the 20th).
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the first Dragon 1 flight to the ISS (COTS-2/3?) include practicing autonomously aborting and retreating? If these are included, and it seems highly likely, NASA will have to go through some sort of formal approval before they can be used on terminal guidance. Heaven only knows what other test they will conduct and need the results of to get approved before actually going in to dock. Since it could take them two days to catch up to the ISS given a launch not specifically set up for quick rendezvous, it hardly seems like a two day approach. And I can't imagine them going into this with a backup day a week away.
That would hint at a NET Feb 17 launch.
"Musk Time" on steroids!
(Appropriate as NASA is the only organization that still thinks "on steroids" is a good thing. ;) )
I wish I had kept track of all the prospective launch dates.
This would be a GREAT time to see one of those FPIPs to see what else is going on at the ISS.
Edit: The Dragon for COTS-2+ was captured on Flight Day 4. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28970.msg904838#msg904838)
Doesn't Crew Dragon have a lot of extra propellant for orbital maneuvering? Why can't they use that for faster phasing even if they can't pick a day with a good phasing alignment?
Post by: mlindner on 01/15/2019 02:46 pm
Post by: mn on 01/15/2019 06:19 pm
New verge article and video with lots of good camera angles of the SpaceX crew simulator along with astronaut interviews. https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/15/18182243/spacex-nasa-astronauts-human-crew-commercial-space-iss-tourism-bob-behnken-doug-hurley
Quote from article
Quote
NASA spokesperson Bob Jacobs confirmed to The Verge that the “announcement about the move into February and the government furlough were unrelated.”
Post by: woods170 on 01/16/2019 07:51 am
New verge article and video with lots of good camera angles of the SpaceX crew simulator along with astronaut interviews. https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/15/18182243/spacex-nasa-astronauts-human-crew-commercial-space-iss-tourism-bob-behnken-doug-hurley
Quote from articleQuoteNASA spokesperson Bob Jacobs confirmed to The Verge that the “announcement about the move into February and the government furlough were unrelated.”
That is in direct contradiction with things I'm hearing from both SpaceX and NASA sources. So, I'm taking this with a grain of salt.
Post by: scr00chy on 01/16/2019 10:42 am
That is in direct contradiction with things I'm hearing from both SpaceX and NASA sources. So, I'm taking this with a grain of salt.
What about this? https://twitter.com/KarenSBernstein/status/1082311710671847424
Quote
I work for NASA on the Commercial Crew Program. We are working at normal staffing levels because the launch schedule for SpaceX and Boeing is critical to NASA’s mission. I do not yet have a sense of my team’s motivation to work without pay.
Post by: woods170 on 01/16/2019 11:45 am
That is in direct contradiction with things I'm hearing from both SpaceX and NASA sources. So, I'm taking this with a grain of salt.
What about this? https://twitter.com/KarenSBernstein/status/1082311710671847424QuoteI work for NASA on the Commercial Crew Program. We are working at normal staffing levels because the launch schedule for SpaceX and Boeing is critical to NASA’s mission. I do not yet have a sense of my team’s motivation to work without pay.
Fits the picture.
There are also non-NASA, non-SpaceX, non-Boeing contractors involved with the CCP which are currently not doing anything, due to the government shut-down. One of those is the Aerospace Corporation, which is involved in certification efforts for CCP.
NASA-side of CCP may be up-and-running (without pay that is) but several other aspects of CCP are currently flat on their backs.
DON'T expect that to NOT have impact on schedule.
Post by: Comga on 01/16/2019 10:09 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1085604474419380224
At the risk of appearing thick to the more knowledgeable people here, would someone please explain this?
How is it "fortuitous"?
What "aspect of CCtCap contract" is advantageous?
Does that mean that SpaceX doesn't need a license from FAA for the DM-1 flight?
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 01/17/2019 01:12 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1085604474419380224
At the risk of appearing thick to the more knowledgeable people here, would someone please explain this?
How is it "fortuitous"?
What "aspect of CCtCap contract" is advantageous?
Does that mean that SpaceX doesn't need a license from FAA for the DM-1 flight?
Yes, Irene's claim is that DM-1 and DM-2, and presumably, by extension the In-Flight Abort, do not need FAA launch licenses, being viewed as NASA launches, like TESS was. Jeff's explanation is that this may be because CCtCap is a NASA contract, as opposed to the COTS test flights, which were performed under a Space Act Agreement. This not needing an FAA license is fortuitous because the FAA is not issuing new or modified launch licenses during the gov't shutdown, and therefore the FAA closure will not hold up these tests. (Without saying what other issues may hold them up)
Post by: joek on 01/17/2019 02:05 am
At the risk of appearing thick to the more knowledgeable people here, would someone please explain this?Yes, Irene's claim is that DM-1 and DM-2, and presumably, by extension the In-Flight Abort, do not need FAA launch licenses, being viewed as NASA launches, like TESS was. Jeff's explanation is that this may be because CCtCap is a NASA contract, as opposed to the COTS test flights, which were performed under a Space Act Agreement. This not needing an FAA license is fortuitous because the FAA is not issuing new or modified launch licenses during the gov't shutdown, and therefore the FAA closure will not hold up these tests. (Without saying what other issues may hold them up)
How is it "fortuitous"?
What "aspect of CCtCap contract" is advantageous?
Does that mean that SpaceX doesn't need a license from FAA for the DM-1 flight?
CCiCap's (SAA) successor CCtCap (FAR) has two distinctly different parts: (1) RDT&E and certification, including DM-x missions; and (2) post-certification flights. While the entire CCiCap contract is under FAR, (2) are commercial flights under standard commercial FAR rules (thus requiring FAA commercial license); (1) are not. Or such is the apparent logic.[1]
p.s. SpaceX in-flight abort was--and presumably still is--under CCiCap (SAA), and would thus require an FAA commercial license.
[1] edit: Which makes sense if you view CCtCap as a hybrid of two distinct contracts jammed into one document--which is what it is. COTS/CRS did something similar, although while the contracts COTS(SAA) and CRS(FAR) were kept separate, they were awarded concurrently; CCtCap could not take the COTS/CRS approach (different discussion not for this thread).
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/21/2019 12:51 pm
Russian article about it: https://ria.ru/20190121/1549642994.html
from Google Translate:
Quote
"The launch of the Dragon-2 ship has been postponed to February 16. A further postponement of the launch dates is not excluded. At least, the American side says so," the agency’s source said.
Ben Cooper's site seems to agree with that: http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
Quote
The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral will launch the first Crew Dragon space capsule
on an uncrewed demonstration mission, DM-1, to the ISS from pad 39A on mid-February at the
earliest. The launch time is around 7 to 9am EST if this timeframe and gets 22-26 minutes earlier each
day. The launch window is instantaneous.
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/22/2019 06:29 am
https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1087607771711852547QuoteThe Falcon 9 rocket set to launch SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft next month has arrived on pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in preparation for a static test-firing as soon as Wednesday.
Post by: jpo234 on 01/22/2019 09:26 am
Worth noting the Falcon 9 has the DM-1 Crew Dragon on top for the static firehttps://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1087607771711852547QuoteThe Falcon 9 rocket set to launch SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft next month has arrived on pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in preparation for a static test-firing as soon as Wednesday.
Question answered. Kind of called it...
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
Post by: pospa on 01/22/2019 10:30 am
Worth noting the Falcon 9 has the DM-1 Crew Dragon on top for the static firehttps://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1087607771711852547QuoteThe Falcon 9 rocket set to launch SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft next month has arrived on pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in preparation for a static test-firing as soon as Wednesday.
There is qualification requirement from NASA for F9+CD human flights: demonstrate 5 times successful load-and-go procedure before 1st lift off with humans on board CD. This is to finalize flight qualification of inovated COPV, Merlins, etc., all block 5 human rating modifications.
It suppose to be the following live tests:
1. DM-1 Static Fire
2. DM-1 Launch
3. IAT Static Fire
4. IAT Launch
5. DM-2 Static Fire
Only when all 5 will be OK, DM-2 flight licence will be granted (from NASA or FAA, or both?).
Post by: jpo234 on 01/22/2019 11:41 am
Only when all 5 will be OK, DM-2 flight licence will be granted (from NASA or FAA, or both?).
Just NASA, apparently.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47095.msg1901946#msg1901946
https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1085598069142495232
Quote
Apparently, Demo-1 and 2 don't need FAA launch licenses (under auspices of NASA, like TESS launch. Post-certification missions will require FAA license, like CRS flights today
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/22/2019 12:27 pm
Worth noting the Falcon 9 has the DM-1 Crew Dragon on top for the static firehttps://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1087607771711852547QuoteThe Falcon 9 rocket set to launch SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft next month has arrived on pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in preparation for a static test-firing as soon as Wednesday.
There is qualification requirement from NASA for F9+CD human flights: demonstrate 5 times successful load-and-go procedure before 1st lift off with humans on board CD. This is to finalize flight qualification of inovated COPV, Merlins, etc., all block 5 human rating modifications.
It suppose to be the following live tests:
1. DM-1 Static Fire
2. DM-1 Launch
3. IAT Static Fire
4. IAT Launch
5. DM-2 Static Fire
Only when all 5 will be OK, DM-2 flight licence will be granted (from NASA or FAA, or both?).
I know, I've actually reminded that here at least twice.
Post by: TGMetsFan98 on 01/22/2019 12:40 pm
Post by: jpo234 on 01/22/2019 12:51 pm
I feel like I’m missing something. How does having Dragon mated to F9 help certify F9’s fueling procedures? Unless it’s having the abort system fueled and armed?
It shows confidence that the (human rated) booster won't blow up.
Post by: Norm38 on 01/22/2019 12:56 pm
So I guess it shows confidence. But if I was putting Dragon on top of the stack for the static fire, I'd have the abort motors live and ready to fire. Just in case.
Post by: spacebleachers on 01/22/2019 12:57 pm
Post by: envy887 on 01/22/2019 01:21 pm
I feel like I’m missing something. How does having Dragon mated to F9 help certify F9’s fueling procedures? Unless it’s having the abort system fueled and armed?
It shows confidence that the (human rated) booster won't blow up.
Is the NASA cargo for DM-1 packed in the Crew Dragon already?
If not, then there is no customer payload on the vehicle, and so no point in demating for the static fire.
Post by: jpo234 on 01/22/2019 01:39 pm
I feel like I’m missing something. How does having Dragon mated to F9 help certify F9’s fueling procedures? Unless it’s having the abort system fueled and armed?
It shows confidence that the (human rated) booster won't blow up.
Is the NASA cargo for DM-1 packed in the Crew Dragon already?
If not, then there is no customer payload on the vehicle, and so no point in demating for the static fire.
What is the planned NASA cargo? Just "tang and t-shirts"?
Post by: TGMetsFan98 on 01/22/2019 02:30 pm
I feel like I’m missing something. How does having Dragon mated to F9 help certify F9’s fueling procedures? Unless it’s having the abort system fueled and armed?
It shows confidence that the (human rated) booster won't blow up.
Is the NASA cargo for DM-1 packed in the Crew Dragon already?
If not, then there is no customer payload on the vehicle, and so no point in demating for the static fire.
Except the risk of damaging Dragon itself...
Obviously no one expects F9 to have an issue. But there’s a reason they’ve been conducting static fires without payloads mated. “Showing confidence” by firing with payload on board is no different for Dragon than any other payload.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/22/2019 02:47 pm
Well - you see, you're putting humans on this thing - during fueling. And SpaceX has fought to establish this protocol. That means that SpaceX is 100% confident that this thing is safe for humans (well, within the NASA human safety requirements). By not having a full stack for a static fire is saying exactly the opposite of that. Now - I would add the one caveat that there is an abort system to save the crew during a catastrophic failure. I'd be curious to know if they arm this system during a static fire to save the capsule. Chris G - perhaps you could slip in that question during the NASA press conference I can only assume there will be around the launch date...?I feel like I’m missing something. How does having Dragon mated to F9 help certify F9’s fueling procedures? Unless it’s having the abort system fueled and armed?
It shows confidence that the (human rated) booster won't blow up.
Is the NASA cargo for DM-1 packed in the Crew Dragon already?
If not, then there is no customer payload on the vehicle, and so no point in demating for the static fire.
Except the risk of damaging Dragon itself...
Obviously no one expects F9 to have an issue. But there’s a reason they’ve been conducting static fires without payloads mated. “Showing confidence” by firing with payload on board is no different for Dragon than any other payload.
Post by: kdhilliard on 01/22/2019 03:07 pm
afety requirements). ... there is an abort system to save the crew during a catastrophic failure. I'd be curious to know if they arm this system during a static fire to save the capsule.If the abort system is to be armed, are there additional range restrictions ensuring boat traffic is clear of potential landing areas?
Post by: envy887 on 01/22/2019 03:28 pm
I feel like I’m missing something. How does having Dragon mated to F9 help certify F9’s fueling procedures? Unless it’s having the abort system fueled and armed?
It shows confidence that the (human rated) booster won't blow up.
Is the NASA cargo for DM-1 packed in the Crew Dragon already?
If not, then there is no customer payload on the vehicle, and so no point in demating for the static fire.
Except the risk of damaging Dragon itself...
Obviously no one expects F9 to have an issue. But there’s a reason they’ve been conducting static fires without payloads mated. “Showing confidence” by firing with payload on board is no different for Dragon than any other payload.
Yes, and that reason is that those payloads are not SpaceX's to risk unnecessarily during a SF. This Dragon and everything in it belongs to SpaceX (assuming it hasn't been loaded), so if they have a need to keep it on top for a SF then they can do that.
If the F9 has a problem, losing the Dragon would be a minor worry compared to RTF for Falcon and rebuilding 39A. The next Dragon in line will be ready in a couple months, long before the pad would be ready and probably well before Falcon could RTF on 40.
Post by: mjcrsmith on 01/22/2019 04:46 pm
Post by: Joffan on 01/22/2019 05:03 pm
It will be interesting to watch the access arm movements if any for the SF.
It would be seriously impressive to extend this static fire to include a full-up launch rehearsal. Board the astronauts, arm the Dragon abort, run the fuel loading and stop at T-zero (that is, after ignition). Then disembark the astronauts, recycle the countdown and run the full static fire - that's the only part of the process that would never have a crew present.
There might well be technical reasons why this is difficult or impossible as simply stated, so take this as a concept to vary for as much experience gathering as possible.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 01/22/2019 05:37 pm
It will be interesting to watch the access arm movements if any for the SF.
It would be seriously impressive to extend this static fire to include a full-up launch rehearsal. Board the astronauts, arm the Dragon abort, run the fuel loading and stop at T-zero (that is, after ignition). Then disembark the astronauts, recycle the countdown and run the full static fire - that's the only part of the process that would never have a crew present.
There might well be technical reasons why this is difficult or impossible as simply stated, so take this as a concept to vary for as much experience gathering as possible.
I think you are under a slight misconception regarding what a static fire is ;)
With SpaceX, a static fire always is a full mission dress rehearsal -- up to (but not including) the point of launch clamp release.
Fit check: <-- you only put stuff on the pad and see if everything fits. No countdown
Dry dress rehearsal: <-- you put stuff on the pad in a countdown sequence and pretend to launch, but you do not add propellant. Sometimes includes mock scrubs/countdown delays
Wet dress rehearsal: <-- You go through a complete countdown until (but not including) ignition. Then you abort the countdown and detank. Sometimes includes mock scrubs/countdown delays.
SpaceX Static fire: <-- Like wet dress rehearsal including ignition of engines and ramping up to full thrust. Abort just before launch clamp release.
Mission dress rehearsal: <-- You do a countdown (usually dry), "pretend to launch" and continue the rehearsal as if, with simulated or mock data (and malfunctions). Important for getting the team routine for complex missions. I think the GPSIII launch did that. You don't necessarily need more than a paper rocket for that one though.
As such whenever SpaceX has done a static fire, they have gone through the full launch procedure. To have that fully realistic, this would include fluids for Dragon and armed abort system, unless they deliberately decide to not include that. Cause even in the worst case scenario, they'd get a free full realism test of the abort system with very valuable data.
Whether or not they can refurbish the dragon after an abort+splash plays a minor role. Its the data which is much more valuable should such a thing happen, and the increased confidence in the abort system it would give everyone.
Edit: Also arming the abort system would include the abort systems self checks and arming procedure in the dress rehearsal, which, if something goes wrong, you don't want to find out on launch day.
Edit of Edit: I missed the part where you suggested putting crew on. This is an uncrewed launch, so not this time, but they could put dummies on to pretend to have a crew. And yes, it would make sense to have that part of the dress rehearsal too. Might actually be.
Post by: Joffan on 01/22/2019 06:07 pm
(...nice description of various rehearsal levels...)
Edit of Edit: I missed the part where you suggested putting crew on. This is an uncrewed launch, so not this time, but they could put dummies on to pretend to have a crew. And yes, it would make sense to have that part of the dress rehearsal too. Might actually be.
Yes... the main point of my comment - if this wasn't sufficiently clear - was to include crew.
Although this isn't a crewed mission, it is a rehearsal for a crewed mission. They presumably won't rehearse crew boarding for the actual launch of DM-1, so this seemed like a good opportunity. A possible objection from the NASA side could be their aversion to insufficiently demonstrated COPV loading.
Post by: kdhilliard on 01/22/2019 06:42 pm
It would be seriously impressive to extend this static fire to include a full-up launch rehearsal. Board the astronauts, arm the Dragon abort, run the fuel loading and stop at T-zero (that is, after ignition). Then disembark the astronauts, recycle the countdown and run the full static fire - that's the only part of the process that would never have a crew present.Did you mean before ignition?
Your proposal seems to combine the worst aspects of load-and-go and early-fueling.
* Crew onboard during fueling, though protected to some degree by an armed capsule abort system.
* Abort system then disarmed allowing support personnel to arrive, disembark crew, and clear pad, working next to a fully fueled vehicle.
* A long pause to allow sub-cooled propellants time to warm up.
What's not to hate?
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/22/2019 06:45 pm
Post by: AbuSimbel on 01/22/2019 06:48 pm
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/22/2019 06:54 pm
Not to mention that the pad egress system isn't functional as of today. (Or at least I still don't see the wires for the baskets installed in today's photos)Wires are on site but not installed. It doesn't take long to install them. They are not needed for DM-1.
Post by: Comga on 01/22/2019 07:20 pm
Worth noting something that a few people are forgetting about the discussion, RP-1 and LOX loading is the same for every Falcon 9 mission now however helium loading changes for crewed missions. The COPV's are loaded 2 hours before launch, then the crew will board inside the capsule and then at T-35minutes the normal propellant loading sequence will begin
That does not seem possible.
The He COPV's are inside the LOX tank so that they can load more He as it gets to cryogenic temperatures.
They can only put in a fraction of the flight He load at ambient temperature.
We can assume that SpaceX will bring the He COPVs to full pressure before the astronauts board.
Then, as the LOX is loaded, the He pressure will drop, and they will continue to add He to maintain the flight pressure.
That should avoid the stretching that contributed to the AMOS-6 static fire failure.
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/22/2019 09:21 pm
Worth noting something that a few people are forgetting about the discussion, RP-1 and LOX loading is the same for every Falcon 9 mission now however helium loading changes for crewed missions. The COPV's are loaded 2 hours before launch, then the crew will board inside the capsule and then at T-35minutes the normal propellant loading sequence will begin
That does not seem possible.
The He COPV's are inside the LOX tank so that they can load more He as it gets to cryogenic temperatures.
They can only put in a fraction of the flight He load at ambient temperature.
We can assume that SpaceX will bring the He COPVs to full pressure before the astronauts board.
Then, as the LOX is loaded, the He pressure will drop, and they will continue to add He to maintain the flight pressure.
That should avoid the stretching that contributed to the AMOS-6 static fire failure.
What you said does not invalidate my comment just extends it further to add the obvious effect that the cold temperatures of the LOX will have. NASA has already explained why there's an initial loading and it's precisely for the reasons you say. Anyways, I would expect the ones on the RP-1 tanks to be almost at flight levels before astronauts board the capsule. Those remain at practically room temperature all the time (yeah, I know, RP-1 is also cooled down too but the temperature difference is not really that high as compared to the LOX).
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/22/2019 09:58 pm
It will be interesting to watch the access arm movements if any for the SF.
Cross post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47095.msg1904177#msg1904177
Crew access arm has been extended to the Dragon.
Post by: Joffan on 01/22/2019 10:05 pm
It would be seriously impressive to extend this static fire to include a full-up launch rehearsal. Board the astronauts, arm the Dragon abort, run the fuel loading and stop at T-zero (that is, after ignition). Then disembark the astronauts, recycle the countdown and run the full static fire - that's the only part of the process that would never have a crew present.Did you mean before ignition?
There might well be technical reasons why this is difficult or impossible as simply stated, so take this as a concept to vary for as much experience gathering as possible.
Your proposal seems to combine the worst aspects of load-and-go and early-fueling.
* Crew onboard during fueling, though protected to some degree by an armed capsule abort system.
* Abort system then disarmed allowing support personnel to arrive, disembark crew, and clear pad, working next to a fully fueled vehicle.
* A long pause to allow sub-cooled propellants time to warm up.
No, T-zero is after ignition, which occurs 2-3 seconds earlier. We have seen countdown aborts after ignition before.
Crew onboard during fueling is how the mission will go. And yes, the capsule abort system is their protection from serious incidents in that phase.
I did not propose - in this scenario - that support personnel should approach a fully-fueled vehicle. There are other, lower-risk ways to handle that - probably the safest is detanking, but SpaceX will have to have acceptably safe processes for handling a T-0 abort.
Recycling countdown with propellants needing re-cooling is definitely one of the processes that SpaceX supports. However this may not even be necessary for a static fire.
No doubt some people would see such a rehearsal as a needless extra risk to expose the crew to. But my thought is that the experience gained is likely to be of sufficient benefit to justify both that and the extra expense, at a point in the schedule where some minor changes are still possible before the real crewed mission.
Post by: kdhilliard on 01/23/2019 12:22 am
No, T-zero is after ignition, which occurs 2-3 seconds earlier. We have seen countdown aborts after ignition before. ...I understand that. I was just assuming that with your proposal you intended them to stop before ignition. So if not, then you are proposing they conduct a crewed, truncated static fire of only 2-3 seconds, then detank, disembark crew, clear pad, and conduct a follow-up full duration static fire. I don't understand the benefit of having crew onboard during a static fire, no matter how long, but in any case we are drifting off topic.
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 01/23/2019 04:00 am
No, T-zero is after ignition, which occurs 2-3 seconds earlier. We have seen countdown aborts after ignition before.
Crew onboard during fueling is how the mission will go. And yes, the capsule abort system is their protection from serious incidents in that phase.
I did not propose - in this scenario - that support personnel should approach a fully-fueled vehicle. There are other, lower-risk ways to handle that - probably the safest is detanking, but SpaceX will have to have acceptably safe processes for handling a T-0 abort.
Recycling countdown with propellants needing re-cooling is definitely one of the processes that SpaceX supports. However this may not even be necessary for a static fire.
No doubt some people would see such a rehearsal as a needless extra risk to expose the crew to. But my thought is that the experience gained is likely to be of sufficient benefit to justify both that and the extra expense, at a point in the schedule where some minor changes are still possible before the real crewed mission.
They won't do this for the reasons discussed months ago. NASA wants the loading sequence performed in the Crew manner with the new COPVs, 5 times before allowing crew on board for fueling operations. These 5 times are understood to be static fire (1), and launch of DM-1 (2), static file (3) and launch of In-Flight Abort (4), and static fire (5) of DM-2, before allowing crew to board for launch of DM-2.
This doesn't preclude the dry 'mission dress rehersals',as CorvusCorax described, which will certainly be done. But NASA won't be risking the Astros prior to the DM-2 launch.
Post by: Roy_H on 01/23/2019 05:56 am
Post by: jpo234 on 01/23/2019 07:52 am
I was under the impression that NASA required 5 practice crew loadings before flight mission. This would be the first opportunity. Also I understood that the crew would board, strap in, then get out and leave before fuel loading.
Are there even seats inside to strap in? It's supposed to carry cargo on this mission, after all.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 01/23/2019 09:50 am
I was under the impression that NASA required 5 practice crew loadings before flight mission. This would be the first opportunity. Also I understood that the crew would board, strap in, then get out and leave before fuel loading.
The crew can practice loading procedures with one of the practice dragon mockups they have safely. They can also do final "real ones" during one or more dry dress rehearsals before DM-2. with vehicle safe and no propellants on board.
In a real abort scenario, assume the engines ignite, sensors sense something wrong and the engines turn off again.
In the past, SpaceX has recycled within relatively short time after such an abort, if the cause was trivial, maybe not even requiring detanking, but that's not relevant for commercial crew as all launch windows are instantaneous. abort at t=0 automatically means scrub and try again a day later as there's no time for recycle.
But one can easily argue:
If the issue is really serious, (fire on the pad?) then the astronauts are safest in the dragon, if necessary utilising the superdracos for a pad abort
if the issue is not so serious, then the safest approach would be to detank, safe the rocket, then get the astronauts out.
there are scenarios thinkable where the crew needs to get out quick and use the escape baskets, but most of those would involve problems with dragon itself, or the crew (medical emergency of some sort) so they really need to get out quick.
if the rocket is the problem, it should be safer to leave the crew safely in dragon (and pad crew at minimum safe distance) until the vehicle is safe
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 01/23/2019 12:08 pm
Quote
Propellant Loading Procedures: Both the program and a NASA advisory group have raised SpaceX’s plan to fuel the launch vehicle after the astronauts are on board the spacecraft to be a potential safety risk. ...https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693035.pdf
To better understand the propellant loading procedures, the program and SpaceX agreed to demonstrate the loading process five times from the launch site in the final crew configuration prior to the crewed flight test. The five events include the uncrewed flight test and the in-flight abort test.
This is 4th party documentation of an agreement between the Commercial Crew program, SpaceX and ASAP to not have Astros on board during fueling until the above is complete. I don't imagine this changing.
And, any testing not involving fueling, is better performed during a time when they're not intending to be fueling.
Post by: BunkerTheHusky on 01/23/2019 01:00 pm
Post by: Norm38 on 01/23/2019 01:23 pm
It would be seriously impressive to extend this static fire to include a full-up launch rehearsal. Board the astronauts, arm the Dragon abort, run the fuel loading and stop at T-zero (that is, after ignition).
Space Camp 2.0? Just keep the droids away from the launch computers.
Post by: Norm38 on 01/23/2019 01:35 pm
QuotePropellant Loading Procedures: Both the program and a NASA advisory group have raised SpaceX’s plan to fuel the launch vehicle after the astronauts are on board the spacecraft to be a potential safety risk. ...https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693035.pdf
To better understand the propellant loading procedures, the program and SpaceX agreed to demonstrate the loading process five times from the launch site in the final crew configuration prior to the crewed flight test. The five events include the uncrewed flight test and the in-flight abort test.
I'm not following this logic. The Dragon can pad abort on a hair trigger. If the astros are strapped in before fueling and the tower crew evacuated, then at any time during fueling (or after), Dragon can abort.
If F9 is fueled before crew board, then there is a large amount of time where unprotected crew and personnel are standing right next to a fueled rocket. Crew inside Dragon not yet strapped in will probably not survive an abort.
What this is saying is that fueling itself is orders of magnitude more dangerous. But once the tanks are full and into topping off, the danger drops down to the point everyone can approach the vehicle.
But that is how Shuttle did it, so I guess that's what NASA is comfortable with.
Post by: gongora on 01/23/2019 03:10 pm
Post by: MostlyHarmless on 01/23/2019 10:02 pm
Unlike satellite payloads, the Dragon 2 is (or at least could be) an active participant in the launch (it at least certainly monitors the progress of the launch, and must be as prepared as the booster, itself). Thus, for the launch team to conduct a full "dress rehearsal" of the countdown and prep for launch, the Dragon 2 must be included in these static fire tests.
If you look at Omar Izquierdo's Tweet at:
https://twitter.com/izqomar/status/1088167736004562945 (https://twitter.com/izqomar/status/1088167736004562945)
The image shows the spacecraft being serviced by the strongback. That tells me that the prepping the Dragon 2 for launch needs to be part of the dress rehearsal.
At least that's my take on things.
Post by: freddo411 on 01/23/2019 10:29 pm
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/23/2019 10:55 pm
What is the purpose of the oddly shaped, cantilevered structure sticking out of the strongback opposite the dragon capsule? Why all the odd angles?
I believe they are retraction aids for the Dragon's umbilicals. It's kind of hard to see in the picture, but there are wire cables going to yellow straps on the umbilicals.
Easier to see in attached picture.
Post by: Lars-J on 01/23/2019 11:48 pm
What is the purpose of the oddly shaped, cantilevered structure sticking out of the strongback opposite the dragon capsule? Why all the odd angles?
I believe they are retraction aids for the Dragon's umbilicals. It's kind of hard to see in the picture, but there are wire cables going to yellow straps on the umbilicals.
Easier to see in attached picture.
Ah, that makes sense. So when the strong back leans back, those arms will come forward and allow Dragon to be connected until liftoff.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/24/2019 01:14 am
Question - beyond umbilical differences to the Dragon Crew capsule, what else is different in any way to a regular Block 5 static fire?
Post by: pospa on 01/24/2019 05:24 am
What is the purpose of the oddly shaped, cantilevered structure sticking out of the strongback opposite the dragon capsule? Why all the odd angles?
I believe they are retraction aids for the Dragon's umbilicals. It's kind of hard to see in the picture, but there are wire cables going to yellow straps on the umbilicals.
Easier to see in attached picture.
I agree. Its even better visible on this latest picture.
Post by: woods170 on 01/24/2019 06:45 am
What is the purpose of the oddly shaped, cantilevered structure sticking out of the strongback opposite the dragon capsule? Why all the odd angles?
I believe they are retraction aids for the Dragon's umbilicals. It's kind of hard to see in the picture, but there are wire cables going to yellow straps on the umbilicals.
Easier to see in attached picture.
I agree. Its even better visible on this latest picture.
They are linear pullers.
There are two T-0 umbilicals on Crew Dragon. One on the Trunk and one on the Crew Module. Those linear pullers activate on T-0 and yank the umbilical connectors away from Crew Dragon, in conjunction with the TE rapidly falling away from the launching F9.
The linear pullers are angled the way they are because they are a compromise between two aspects of the design:
- To pull away the umbilical connectors under a certain angle.
- Ground clearance of this set-up when the TE is horizontal.
Once this thing finally launches you will all witness why this set-up is positioned the way it is.
Post by: woods170 on 01/24/2019 06:52 am
What is the purpose of the oddly shaped, cantilevered structure sticking out of the strongback opposite the dragon capsule? Why all the odd angles?
I believe they are retraction aids for the Dragon's umbilicals. It's kind of hard to see in the picture, but there are wire cables going to yellow straps on the umbilicals.
Easier to see in attached picture.
Ah, that makes sense. So when the strong back leans back, those arms will come forward and allow Dragon to be connected until liftoff.
No, the arms will not come forward. When the strong back leans back slightly, a few minutes before liftoff, additional lengths of wire cable will be unreeled from the retraction aids (also known as linear pullers). At T-0 the linear pullers will very rapidly reel in the wire cables to yank the umbilical connectors away from Crew Dragon.
They can be extremely rapid in their action as they will also perform the exact same function (pulling the umbilicals away from Crew Dragon) during a pad abort.
Post by: Comga on 01/24/2019 05:51 pm
What is the purpose of the oddly shaped, cantilevered structure sticking out of the strongback opposite the dragon capsule? Why all the odd angles?
I believe they are retraction aids for the Dragon's umbilicals. It's kind of hard to see in the picture, but there are wire cables going to yellow straps on the umbilicals.
Easier to see in attached picture.
Ah, that makes sense. So when the strong back leans back, those arms will come forward and allow Dragon to be connected until liftoff.
It does, thank you, but that makes the angle of these long objects (one on either side as seen in the second photo) all that harder to understand.
I can visualize these devices hauling in the connectors on the ends of the umbilicals as the strongback falls away after the instant of launch, but it looks like they will be pulling at odd angles, rather than straight down their length.
By what angle does the TE retract in the minutes before ignition, and by what distance will that separate it from the Dragon capsule?
Will those umbilicals be close to their length limit?
Post by: Comga on 01/24/2019 05:55 pm
From memory, for all recent Falcon launches, the strongback is retracted at T-4:00.
For Crew Dragon, including DM-1, will the strongback be retracted before fueling, at T-35:00 so that the capsule has a clear escape path?
Particularly if the umbilical retractors are designed to work from the retracted position, it seems logical that it be retracted any time the LAS is primed to pull the capsule away from a dangerous situation.
"Dangerous situations" includes failures during fueling.
Post by: dlapine on 01/24/2019 06:14 pm
Post by: Roy_H on 01/24/2019 06:33 pm
So, would a static fire require that the strongback + crew accessway be pulled back from the stack before the fire?
The purpose of the static fire is to simulate all steps in a real launch. I think it would be a major error if they fail to retract the crew arm.
Post by: butters on 01/24/2019 06:38 pm
So, would a static fire require that the strongback + crew accessway be pulled back from the stack before the fire?
The purpose of the static fire is to simulate all steps in a real launch. I think it would be a major error if they fail to retract the crew arm.
With load-and-go, wouldn't we expect the crew access arm to be retracted, and the SuperDraco abort system activated, before tanking begins at T-35m? Pad abort is definitely a no-go with the access arm extended.
Post by: Joffan on 01/24/2019 06:53 pm
So, would a static fire require that the strongback + crew accessway be pulled back from the stack before the fire?
The purpose of the static fire is to simulate all steps in a real launch. I think it would be a major error if they fail to retract the crew arm.
With load-and-go, wouldn't we expect the crew access arm to be retracted, and the SuperDraco abort system activated, before tanking begins at T-35m? Pad abort is definitely a no-go with the access arm extended.
Pad abort is probably a "go" any time the system is activated. The reason to retract either the TE or the access arm earlier than normal would be to avoid the damage to those items that an abort might inflict. I 'd see the access arm as being far more vulnerable; the Dragon is above most of the TE.
So yes, I too would expect the access arm to be moved a little out of the way once the abort is armed. But perhaps not a full retraction until late in the count; an interesting point to watch.
Post by: ejb749 on 01/24/2019 07:26 pm
Post by: Comga on 01/24/2019 07:26 pm
Separate question:
From memory, for all recent Falcon launches, the strongback is retracted at T-4:00.
For Crew Dragon, including DM-1, will the strongback be retracted before fueling, at T-35:00 so that the capsule has a clear escape path?
Particularly if the umbilical retractors are designed to work from the retracted position, it seems logical that it be retracted any time the LAS is primed to pull the capsule away from a dangerous situation.
"Dangerous situations" includes failures during fueling.
Responding to my own question, it just passed T-35:00 for a 1600 local static fire time.
Fueling should have started if they are still on that schedule.
The CAA is retracted but the strongback has not yet leaned back.
edit:
LOX loading has started
It is not clear how jjyach knows this.
The strongback is still not retracted at 3:30 local (T-30:00 for 4:00 SF)
Post by: ejb749 on 01/24/2019 07:31 pm
Post by: HelixSpiral on 01/24/2019 07:35 pm
Post by: ejb749 on 01/24/2019 07:35 pm
Post by: ejb749 on 01/24/2019 07:40 pm
Post by: Craftyatom on 01/24/2019 07:41 pm
Post by: Comga on 01/24/2019 07:41 pm
Venting!
So SpaceX did NOT retract the strongback before LOX loading.
Interesting
Post by: ejb749 on 01/24/2019 07:44 pm
Post by: ejb749 on 01/24/2019 07:50 pm
Post by: ejb749 on 01/24/2019 07:53 pm
Post by: ejb749 on 01/24/2019 07:56 pm
Post by: Lars-J on 01/24/2019 07:57 pm
Post by: ejb749 on 01/24/2019 07:59 pm
Post by: ejb749 on 01/24/2019 08:00 pm
Post by: Craftyatom on 01/24/2019 08:01 pm
Post by: Comga on 01/24/2019 08:01 pm
Strongback should start to retract soon.
Nope!
It looks like they did the static fire without retracting the strongback
Post by: Lars-J on 01/24/2019 08:02 pm
Strongback should start to retract soon.
Nope!
It looks like they did the static fire without retracting the strongback
It looked like it was retracted. It doesn't retract much (5 degrees?), and it is even less apparent from the stream angle. But perhaps my eyes are deceiving me.
Post by: Craftyatom on 01/24/2019 08:05 pm
I believe they probably retracted it one and a half degrees, like they do for most launches prior to liftoff. It's hard to tell from this distance/at this angle.Strongback should start to retract soon.
Nope!
It looks like they did the static fire without retracting the strongback
Post by: ChrisC on 01/24/2019 08:26 pm
Static fire and then, Crew Access Arm back...
I watched the Florida stream for a little while after the static fire and didn't see the CAA move back. Then they ended the stream when I wasn't looking. Were these screenshots from the FT stream, or SpaceFlightNow, or other? And more importantly, approximately what time did the CAA go back, and can you characterize how quickly it moved? The move away from the capsule during the countdown was apparently rather quick, per reports here earlier.
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/24/2019 08:33 pm
Venting!
So SpaceX did NOT retract the strongback before LOX loading.
Interesting
Why would they even need to retract the strongback for that? The rocket needs to be almost fully fueled and the tanks must be at almost flight pressures for the strongback to be retracted, they have explained that on many of their webcasts.
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/24/2019 08:34 pm
Strongback should start to retract soon.
Nope!
It looks like they did the static fire without retracting the strongback
The strongback retracted at T-4min like usual
Post by: Joffan on 01/24/2019 09:03 pm
So SpaceX did NOT retract the strongback before LOX loading.
Interesting
Why would they even need to retract the strongback for that? The rocket needs to be almost fully fueled and the tanks must be at almost flight pressures for the strongback to be retracted, they have explained that on many of their webcasts.
"Test Like You Fly" is the simple answer to "why would they retract the strongback?". In the same way the static fire is conducted fully fueled and at flight pressure; the fuel is not necessary for a 3-second burn and I doubt the full pressure is either.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/24/2019 09:24 pm
So SpaceX did NOT retract the strongback before LOX loading.
Interesting
Why would they even need to retract the strongback for that? The rocket needs to be almost fully fueled and the tanks must be at almost flight pressures for the strongback to be retracted, they have explained that on many of their webcasts.
"Test Like You Fly" is the simple answer to "why would they retract the strongback?". In the same way the static fire is conducted fully fueled and at flight pressure; the fuel is not necessary for a 3-second burn and I doubt the full pressure is either.
For a launch, the strongback isn't retracted until T-4 min, so they did "test like they fly."
Static fires are done with full fuel loads and at flight pressures. It is a complete wet dress rehearsal for launch, the only difference is that for a launch they release the hold-down clamps on the rocket.
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/24/2019 09:28 pm
So SpaceX did NOT retract the strongback before LOX loading.
Interesting
Why would they even need to retract the strongback for that? The rocket needs to be almost fully fueled and the tanks must be at almost flight pressures for the strongback to be retracted, they have explained that on many of their webcasts.
"Test Like You Fly" is the simple answer to "why would they retract the strongback?". In the same way the static fire is conducted fully fueled and at flight pressure; the fuel is not necessary for a 3-second burn and I doubt the full pressure is either.
I don't think you understood my comment properly. The other user was talking about a retraction BEFORE even fueling began which has never happened and it's not what it is going to happen. I was talking about that and not about the actual retraction that happens at T-4min. They ALWAYS load the vehicle entirely for the static fires and have the tanks at flight pressure. This static fire was like any other one in terms of that, nothing really special and on the Florida Today livestream you could even see the upper clamps opening and then the strongback retracting.
Post by: Joffan on 01/24/2019 10:42 pm
I don't think you understood my comment properly. The other user was talking about a retraction BEFORE even fueling began which has never happened and it's not what it is going to happen. I was talking about that and not about the actual retraction that happens at T-4min. They ALWAYS load the vehicle entirely for the static fires and have the tanks at flight pressure. This static fire was like any other one in terms of that, nothing really special and on the Florida Today livestream you could even see the upper clamps opening and then the strongback retracting.Yes, I misunderstood your comment. We are in complete agreement on the process.
Post by: Comga on 01/25/2019 01:49 am
So SpaceX did NOT retract the strongback before LOX loading.I don't think you understood my comment properly. The other user was talking about a retraction BEFORE even fueling began which has never happened and it's not what it is going to happen. I was talking about that and not about the actual retraction that happens at T-4min. They ALWAYS load the vehicle entirely for the static fires and have the tanks at flight pressure. This static fire was like any other one in terms of that, nothing really special and on the Florida Today livestream you could even see the upper clamps opening and then the strongback retracting.
Interesting
(other posts skipped)
Correct
As "the other user" my question was about the strongback during most of fueling.
SpaceX is convincing NASA that it is safe to fuel Falcon while the astronauts are on board.
It is the common assumption that one reason is that Crew Dragon has the Launch Abort System on standby during fueling.
SpaceX leans back the strongback at T-4:00 for all satellite and Cargo Dragon launches.
But satellite and Cargo Dragon launches don't have LAS, so that history is not 100% representative.
before the strongback retracts, if the LAS was activated, its top would still be right there close to or touching the capsule.
All the umbilical retractors would be at angles other than what they are designed for
It would seem to be an additional hazard, one that may not have been present in the Ground Abort test.
But it seems SpaceX and NASA are OK with this.
Post by: eeergo on 01/25/2019 02:17 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1088633393149968384
The shutdown does sound "bangy"... I wonder if it's a real feature, or just the microphone's gain passing from being saturated by the high-power roar, adjusting its gain in the descending slope of decreasing sound power level, and making it appear as if there was a sudden loud burst.
Post by: TJL on 01/25/2019 09:33 pm
Post by: rockets4life97 on 01/25/2019 10:21 pm
So, was this the first SpaceX static test fire with spacecraft since Amos-6?
By my recollection (and I follow SpaceX closely), the answer is yes.
Post by: topo334 on 01/25/2019 10:50 pm
Post by: strawwalker on 01/29/2019 04:12 am
Post by: spacebleachers on 01/29/2019 06:34 pm
Post by: Comga on 01/29/2019 07:12 pm
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/QuoteNET Feb. 23 Falcon 9 • Crew Dragon Demo 1
Launch time: 1033 GMT (5:33 a.m. EST)
Sunrise time (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/cocoa-beach?month=2&year=2019) Feb 23 at the Cape would be 6:53 AM EST.
Sunlight would be a few hundred kilometers AGL, so it might not light up the plumes around staging, which will be pretty far offshore due to the flattened trajectory.
Might not be a visually striking display.
And every day of additional delay pushes the launch deeper into the night.
Post by: gongora on 01/30/2019 05:22 pm
With a launch on Feb 23 the current Dragon 2 comms STA will expire before the mission ends. 0915-EX-ST-2018 is valid through March 1. I guess we should expect to see a new request in the coming days.
0068-EX-ST-2019 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=89495&RequestTimeout=1000) NET March 2
Post by: Comga on 01/30/2019 05:40 pm
Not that it necessarily means anything, but the NASA Administrator indicated they were still going to launch Demo-1 in February. I'm sure he isn't in the know on the very latest, but he did end today's town hall with that statement being one of things coming in the near future.For those of you who want to see it, it's around 37:00 into the Administrator's speech to Headquarters which can be seen here.
here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbBAVdPq15g)
Post by: mainmind on 02/01/2019 12:11 am
Eric Ralph claims on twitter that DM-1 is now NET March, but can't link source. Don't know if this qualifies for the Updates thread, so Mod can delete as seen fit.
Source is an employee familiar with the matter.
(This is Eric).
Public confirmation is here for a NET 2 March launch:
https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Corp/0068-EX-ST-2019?fbclid=IwAR3W9pOtBy9hrusZ1T7gXoMWzEDUQ2sU3LaDR9ojHGEFWppXLEjNWd6PbAk
Post by: Michael Baylor on 02/01/2019 02:26 am
Public confirmation is here for a NET 2 March launch:Unless I am missing something, that is not confirmation of any NET. SpaceX is just bumping the previous license which was going to expire on March 1st. Technically, they could still launch on March 1st using the previous permit. All this really says is that SpaceX thinks there is a chance that the launch may slip past March 1st.
https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Corp/0068-EX-ST-2019?fbclid=IwAR3W9pOtBy9hrusZ1T7gXoMWzEDUQ2sU3LaDR9ojHGEFWppXLEjNWd6PbAk
Post by: Comga on 02/03/2019 06:40 pm
https://ria.ru/20190130/1550110181.html (https://ria.ru/20190130/1550110181.html)
Google translate:QuoteMOSCOW, Jan. 30 - RIA News. The new American spacecraft Dragon-2 will fly to the ISS in unmanned mode in the first half of March, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.
https://ria.ru/20190131/1550174772.html (https://ria.ru/20190131/1550174772.html)
Google translate:QuoteMOSCOW, January 31 - RIA News. The next launches of the American spacecraft to the ISS are postponed to a later date, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti on Thursday.
Earlier, another source told RIA Novosti that the launch of SpaceX Ilon Mask developed by the Dragon-2 spacecraft to the ISS in unmanned mode was postponed from the end of February to the first half of March.
“The American colleagues moved not only the launch of the Dragon-2 ship in unmanned mode, but in general all the next launches of their ships to the ISS. For example, the launch of the Dragon cargo ship, scheduled for March 16, was postponed to mid-April. in unmanned mode, scheduled for March 28, moved to the first half of May, "- said the agency interlocutor.
My emphasis
DM-1 in "first half of March" as of Wednesday but "the first half of May" as of Thursday?
How much weight should we give this?
(Should it even be here in Updates?)
Post by: cppetrie on 02/03/2019 06:45 pm
I think the reference of moving to May regards the Starliner capsule, not Dragon 2.https://ria.ru/20190130/1550110181.html (https://ria.ru/20190130/1550110181.html)
Google translate:QuoteMOSCOW, Jan. 30 - RIA News. The new American spacecraft Dragon-2 will fly to the ISS in unmanned mode in the first half of March, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.
https://ria.ru/20190131/1550174772.html (https://ria.ru/20190131/1550174772.html)
Google translate:QuoteMOSCOW, January 31 - RIA News. The next launches of the American spacecraft to the ISS are postponed to a later date, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti on Thursday.
Earlier, another source told RIA Novosti that the launch of SpaceX Ilon Mask developed by the Dragon-2 spacecraft to the ISS in unmanned mode was postponed from the end of February to the first half of March.
“The American colleagues moved not only the launch of the Dragon-2 ship in unmanned mode, but in general all the next launches of their ships to the ISS. For example, the launch of the Dragon cargo ship, scheduled for March 16, was postponed to mid-April. in unmanned mode, scheduled for March 28, moved to the first half of May, "- said the agency interlocutor.
My emphasis
DM-1 in "first half of March" as of Wednesday but "the first half of May" as of Thursday?
How much weight should we give this?
(Should it even be here in Updates?)
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/03/2019 07:01 pm
https://ria.ru/20190130/1550110181.html (https://ria.ru/20190130/1550110181.html)
Google translate:QuoteMOSCOW, Jan. 30 - RIA News. The new American spacecraft Dragon-2 will fly to the ISS in unmanned mode in the first half of March, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.
https://ria.ru/20190131/1550174772.html (https://ria.ru/20190131/1550174772.html)
Google translate:QuoteMOSCOW, January 31 - RIA News. The next launches of the American spacecraft to the ISS are postponed to a later date, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti on Thursday.
Earlier, another source told RIA Novosti that the launch of SpaceX Ilon Mask developed by the Dragon-2 spacecraft to the ISS in unmanned mode was postponed from the end of February to the first half of March.
“The American colleagues moved not only the launch of the Dragon-2 ship in unmanned mode, but in general all the next launches of their ships to the ISS. For example, the launch of the Dragon cargo ship, scheduled for March 16, was postponed to mid-April. in unmanned mode, scheduled for March 28, moved to the first half of May, "- said the agency interlocutor.
My emphasis
DM-1 in "first half of March" as of Wednesday but "the first half of May" as of Thursday?
How much weight should we give this?
(Should it even be here in Updates?)
They are talking about the CRS-17 mission which has been delayed to NET mid-april and about Starliner which is now on the first half of May. Sometimes it's good to read things twice and carefully when it is translated by Google.
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 02/06/2019 09:28 pm
Post by: smoliarm on 02/06/2019 09:58 pm
In the picture of the DM1 on the launch pad, it appears to me that there are no exhaust ports for the SuperDracos.As I recall, the ports are in place, they are just sealed with the silvery film - for hydro-protection.
IIRC, the ablative coating is fairly susceptible to air moisture.
BTW, they do the same thing with the Dragon's ablative heat shield - it is covered with similarly looking silvery film.
Post by: Lars-J on 02/07/2019 02:20 am
In the picture of the DM1 on the launch pad, it appears to me that there are no exhaust ports for the SuperDracos.
The ports are there (but with launch covers), it is just hard to see in the light conditions of that picture. This picture shows them better:
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 02/07/2019 03:55 pm
Post by: kevinof on 02/07/2019 04:06 pm
Are those covers on the Super Dracos designed to blow up if the engine starts or are they a "remove before flight" item?
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/07/2019 04:32 pm
If they are like the Dracos then it's on first fire. Now as these are the SuperDracos and only used for abort, they will stay in place which may even help with keeping water out on splashdown.Are those covers on the Super Dracos designed to blow up if the engine starts or are they a "remove before flight" item?
Wouldn't it burn off during re-entry?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/07/2019 04:34 pm
Are those covers on the Super Dracos designed to blow up if the engine starts or are they a "remove before flight" item?
They blow off. It will look like it does now at launch. The covers/seals look thicker then the regular Draco covers, but the SuperDracos have much more thrust so they will blow off easily.
Post by: kevinof on 02/07/2019 04:39 pm
If they are like the Dracos then it's on first fire. Now as these are the SuperDracos and only used for abort, they will stay in place which may even help with keeping water out on splashdown.Are those covers on the Super Dracos designed to blow up if the engine starts or are they a "remove before flight" item?
Wouldn't it burn off during re-entry?
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 02/07/2019 06:15 pm
hmm.. probably. Forgot about that.If they are like the Dracos then it's on first fire. Now as these are the SuperDracos and only used for abort, they will stay in place which may even help with keeping water out on splashdown.Are those covers on the Super Dracos designed to blow up if the engine starts or are they a "remove before flight" item?
Wouldn't it burn off during re-entry?
Meant to say "blow out" rather than "blow up" in my earlier post. Slightly different meaning.
I'm not sure they would burn off during reentry as the openings are not where the heat shield is located. Hopefully won't be too much friction heating there.
I could see the plugs being made to stay in place unless an abort happens. Being that those engines are not used for landing anymore, they shouldn't fire at all during a nominal mission. If the plugs stay in place, they would also help to keep salt water out of the engines.
Post by: spacebleachers on 02/08/2019 09:12 pm
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">And now NASA social is getting ready for March 2 https://t.co/0I0kOjQbA1 (https://t.co/0I0kOjQbA1)</p>— spacebleachers (@spacebleachers) February 8, 2019 (https://twitter.com/spacebleachers/status/1093979583634989056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Unfortunately, I did not get a call this time :-\
Post by: abaddon on 02/20/2019 08:43 pm
Post FRR presser on Friday.Is this the first time we've heard the launch time? I have to say I don't know if I'm going to be watching this live at 2:48am EST on a Saturday :(.
Also confirms it's an Agency level FRR per Gerst's involvement.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-spacex-demo-1-briefings-events-and-broadcasts
Also shows they are rather confident to already set the presser up.
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/20/2019 08:52 pm
(From the Updates thread)Post FRR presser on Friday.Is this the first time we've heard the launch time? I have to say I don't know if I'm going to be watching this live at 2:48am EST on a Saturday :(.
Also confirms it's an Agency level FRR per Gerst's involvement.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-spacex-demo-1-briefings-events-and-broadcasts
Also shows they are rather confident to already set the presser up.
That's the same hour of day that has been reported these last two weeks since they sticked with March 2nd, nothing new.
Post by: Rondaz on 02/20/2019 09:23 pm
NASA and commercial crew provider SpaceX are targeting 2:48 a.m. EST Saturday, March 2, for the launch of the Demo-1 uncrewed flight test to the International Space Station. The uncrewed test flights will be the first time a commercially-built and operated American rocket and spacecraft designed for humans will launch to the space station.
Live coverage will begin on NASA Television and the agency’s website Friday, Feb. 22 with prelaunch events.
The SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft will launch on a Falcon 9 rocket from the historic Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. About 10 minutes after launch, Crew Dragon will reach its preliminary orbit. It is scheduled to dock to station Sunday, March 3 at 5:55 a.m. EST. The Crew Dragon spacecraft will carry about 400 pounds of crew supplies and equipment to the space station and return some critical research samples to Earth.
The spacecraft will spend about five days attached to the space station. Dragon will remain at the space station until March 8 when the spacecraft will return to Earth. About five hours after Dragon leaves the station, it will conduct its deorbit burn, which lasts up to 10 minutes. It takes about 30 minutes for Dragon to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere and splash down in the Atlantic Ocean.
The deadline for media to apply for accreditation for this launch has passed, but more information about media accreditation is available by contacting [email protected].
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-spacex-demo-1-briefings-events-and-broadcasts
Post by: Norm38 on 02/20/2019 09:38 pm
Quote
It takes about 30 minutes for Dragon to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere and splash down in the Atlantic Ocean.
I was going to say that was a typo, Dragon lands in the Pacific. But it's not? Guess I missed that.
Quote
When astronauts need to return home, the plan is for the Crew Dragon to splash down in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida.https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/5/18064396/spacex-commercial-crew-dragon-astronauts-go-searcher-boat-recovery
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 02/20/2019 09:49 pm
Is this the first time we've heard the launch time?
Nope.
https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1093259018754244608
Post by: Lars-J on 02/20/2019 10:15 pm
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/20/2019 11:07 pm
QuoteIt takes about 30 minutes for Dragon to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere and splash down in the Atlantic Ocean.
I was going to say that was a typo, Dragon lands in the Pacific. But it's not? Guess I missed that.QuoteWhen astronauts need to return home, the plan is for the Crew Dragon to splash down in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida.https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/5/18064396/spacex-commercial-crew-dragon-astronauts-go-searcher-boat-recovery
Yep, Atlantic, with the Pacific as backup landing location. I recall there was some talk of having a section of the Caribbean off the West coast of Florida as another backup landing area, I don't know if that went anywhere. But the Atlantic is the primary landing site, and that's why SpaceX built a Dragon processing building near LZ-1.
Post by: John Santos on 02/20/2019 11:20 pm
... I recall there was some talk of having a section of the Caribbean off the West coast of Florida as another backup landing area, I don't know if that went anywhere. But the Atlantic is the primary landing site, and that's why SpaceX built a Dragon processing building near LZ-1.
Geographical nit: The Caribbean is south of Florida (actually, south of Puerto Rico). West of Florida is the Gulf of Mexico.
IIRC, the area marked out was off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and maybe the Florida pan handle, i.e. the northern Gulf of Mexico. But maybe this was from when they were still planning to launch F9s from Boca Chica.
Post by: punder on 02/20/2019 11:24 pm
Not a bad launch time for us west coasters. :)
And not that bad for us Rocky Mountain High types. Party on!
Post by: rcoppola on 02/22/2019 09:22 pm
Post by: HarryM on 02/22/2019 09:57 pm
Getting from there to here.
it's been a long time,
but my time is finally near…"
Post by: crandles57 on 02/22/2019 10:03 pm
Post by: punder on 02/22/2019 10:08 pm
A little shudder...and a catch in my throat as I read the FRR is approved and we are a go for DM-1 March 2....Wow, this is actually happening. :)
Only 7-1/2 days from now!
Post by: AndyH on 02/22/2019 10:21 pm
Post by: cppetrie on 02/22/2019 10:22 pm
Any insight into the issue the Russians might have with the crew Dragon? I'm watching the Post FRR stream on NASA TV.You mean besides the fact that it leads towards NASA not needing Russian seats?
Post by: AndyH on 02/22/2019 10:32 pm
Apparently there was a specific objection to some part of the DM1 process that may have been left open after the FRR. Apparently there's also a data-related item open as well.Any insight into the issue the Russians might have with the crew Dragon? I'm watching the Post FRR stream on NASA TV.You mean besides the fact that it leads towards NASA not needing Russian seats?
Ok, it was covered later in the FRR presser. Something about a desire for a failsafe in case the computer locks during approach to ISS.
Post by: Joffan on 02/22/2019 10:36 pm
It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.Any insight into the issue the Russians might have with the crew Dragon? I'm watching the Post FRR stream on NASA TV.You mean besides the fact that it leads towards NASA not needing Russian seats?
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Post by: Pelorat on 02/22/2019 11:16 pm
It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS, and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american. They can voice their concerns but they are ultimately (IMHO) invalid. Do they think Crew Dragon is less capable than Cargo Dragon? No... their concerns are political.
Post by: eeergo on 02/22/2019 11:25 pm
It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS, and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american. They can voice their concerns but they are ultimately (IMHO) invalid. Do they think Crew Dragon is less capable than Cargo Dragon? No... their concerns are political.
Could you point out which capsule collided with ISS? Please don't spread nonsense.
Which launch system would have never been certified to launch crews had it been from the US? You mean the Soyuz LV, the rocket that has been certified for decades to launch crew, has never experienced a LOC event and indeed the only available means of returning from the ISS since its inception, and to get there (therefore to maintain ISS operational) during the Columbia and post-STS US HSF gaps?
How can Crew Dragon be equally "capable" as Cargo Dragon with respect to approach operations when the latter doesn't dock, neither use the same IVA C&C equipment?
Just as the US has rightfully expressed concerns about Russian procedures, so can international *partners* express similar reserves.
Post by: mme on 02/22/2019 11:30 pm
Quote of the night by Kathy:I truly laughed out loud at this one. Poor Hans. But seriously it seems like everyone has a good working relationship which is always good to see.
People weigh different, but not *that* different. And if they do, they're probably not an astronaut.
...
That's why you aren't an astronaut (pointing to Hans)
[Hilarity ensues, Hans doesn't believe his ears]
I should have taken a nap before the briefing, they told me...
Post by: drnscr on 02/22/2019 11:43 pm
It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS, and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american. They can voice their concerns but they are ultimately (IMHO) invalid. Do they think Crew Dragon is less capable than Cargo Dragon? No... their concerns are political.
Actually, they had a vehicle collide with Mir
Post by: joek on 02/22/2019 11:46 pm
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS...Think you might be referring to collision with launch vehicle, not ISS?
Quote
... and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american.Think you might be referring to crew transportation system as a whole, not the launch system?
Might better be restated as "Which
Post by: blah on 02/23/2019 12:07 am
Quote of the night by Kathy:I truly laughed out loud at this one. Poor Hans. But seriously it seems like everyone has a good working relationship which is always good to see.
People weigh different, but not *that* different. And if they do, they're probably not an astronaut.
...
That's why you aren't an astronaut (pointing to Hans)
[Hilarity ensues, Hans doesn't believe his ears]
I should have taken a nap before the briefing, they told me...
Here's a link to the question that gave rise to that quip. I could hardly believe my ears either, I had to rewatch it to confirm. Hopefully they have the kind of relationship where banter like that is normal.
https://youtu.be/AkOHE-LCT_s?t=2847
Post by: yokem55 on 02/23/2019 02:17 am
We all have a tendency to re-fight the last battle. From their perspective, having the most experience of anyone in automated docking sequences, and how those sequences can fail, their concerns are very well placed.It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS, and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american. They can voice their concerns but they are ultimately (IMHO) invalid. Do they think Crew Dragon is less capable than Cargo Dragon? No... their concerns are political.
Actually, they had a vehicle collide with Mir
Post by: DaveS on 02/23/2019 02:36 am
In that case, the automated docking system ("Kurs") was not active. It happened during a test with it fully deactivated and the Progress M-34 spacecraft was flown manually from the TORU station onboard Mir by Vasily Tsibliyev. He had a really poor remote TV view of Mir as seen from the Progress and no range or ranging data as result of Kurs being inactive.We all have a tendency to re-fight the last battle. From their perspective, having the most experience of anyone in automated docking sequences, and how those sequences can fail, their concerns are very well placed.It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS, and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american. They can voice their concerns but they are ultimately (IMHO) invalid. Do they think Crew Dragon is less capable than Cargo Dragon? No... their concerns are political.
Actually, they had a vehicle collide with Mir
So he had to judge its range and rates just from the poor TV view and by the time he noticed the Progress being off course and moving too fast it was too late to avoid the impact with the Mir Core Module and the Spektr module.
This test was being done to see if the cash-strapped Russia could do away with the now very expensive Kurs system which was now being manufactured in the now independent Ukraine, another sore spot. This lasted for a long time, even will into the mid 00's as several shuttle missions returned disconnected Kurs avionics boxes for re-use on later Soyuz and Progress missions.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/23/2019 06:05 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1099107397791043584
Quote
By the way, I've heard that the webcast for Demo-1 is going to be pretty spectacular. I'm excited to see what @SpaceX has planned to show off their vehicle and its flight.
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/23/2019 06:51 am
Post by: Mark K on 02/23/2019 10:31 am
EDIT: I listened to the recorded version, and the "velocity vector" issue was the Russian concern about what would happen if the single (redundant) C&C box for Dragon-2 died during its approach to ISS.
Single redundant ...... sounds interesting. Anyway it is a legitimate question, but I think with good answers.
This multiple dissimilar approach has drawbacks as well which have been shown in some testing. I looked back to see if I could find the papers but couldn't find them. I think some go back a couple decades actually.
Post by: Vasiliy on 02/23/2019 11:19 am
I didn't understand what Bill Gerstenmaier said about warm propellant during Post FRR Press Conference.
Quote
On the thrusters, there's a portion of the thruster that can actually break free, and liberate, and come out of the thruster. I think we understand why that occurs. We can control that by operating the thrusters in a certain manner, keeping temperatures at a certain temperature, keeping the propellant conditions exactly the right way. In the future, we'd like to understand, to maybe make a change to that. To either keep the thermal system, keep the propellant warm in the vehicle without having to do attitude control to keep the propellant warm. So that'll be another change that's coming in the propulsion system.Could someone explain?
Post by: eeergo on 02/23/2019 12:32 pm
EDIT: I listened to the recorded version, and the "velocity vector" issue was the Russian concern about what would happen if the single (redundant) C&C box for Dragon-2 died during its approach to ISS.
Single redundant ...... sounds interesting. Anyway it is a legitimate question, but I think with good answers.
This multiple dissimilar approach has drawbacks as well which have been shown in some testing. I looked back to see if I could find the papers but couldn't find them. I think some go back a couple decades actually.
I should maybe have worded this better: it is a single box, but its systems are redundant inside. Russian concern was about: "what if the box seizes up and even while having redundant internal systems it cannot command Dragon and can't be swapped out by a spare? Answer will probably show it's not likely, or even possible, for the redundant systems to affect each other even if in the same box.
Post by: eeergo on 02/23/2019 12:39 pm
Hi
I didn't understand what Bill Gerstenmaier said about warm propellant during Post FRR Press Conference.QuoteOn the thrusters, there's a portion of the thruster that can actually break free, and liberate, and come out of the thruster. I think we understand why that occurs. We can control that by operating the thrusters in a certain manner, keeping temperatures at a certain temperature, keeping the propellant conditions exactly the right way. In the future, we'd like to understand, to maybe make a change to that. To either keep the thermal system, keep the propellant warm in the vehicle without having to do attitude control to keep the propellant warm. So that'll be another change that's coming in the propulsion system.Could someone explain?
My take is that the Dracos, as currently designed, have the potential to shed some components which can break free, likely due to temperature issues (propellant feed temps, exhaust expansion...?).
While redesigning the offending thruster piece would be ideal, they wouldn't want to delay the schedule for that, so an operational mitigation would be to avoid those cold temperatures, without obviously impacting other operations too much (hence the note about attitude control).
Post by: kemen on 02/23/2019 04:26 pm
Post by: rsnellenberger on 02/23/2019 04:43 pm
Post by: eeergo on 02/23/2019 04:45 pm
Gerstenmaier mentioned a need/desire for a 24 hour docking time due to thermal constraints (presumably on Dragon). Since this is the first use of an IDA on-orbit, I’m curious what the contingency plans are for dealing with any issues that arise - how many attempts are possible, amount of “loiter time” available to diagnose/work issues, etc.
Sure, I meant redesign wasn't deemed as necessary for DM-1 to avoid messing with the schedule for that minor issue that can be mitigated procedurally - but they did mention it will be redesigned, possibly for DM-2.
However my info comes just from the briefing, so if insiders can share more, it will be more valuable than what I can gather from Gerst's comments.
Post by: cuddihy on 02/23/2019 06:10 pm
Post by: ugordan on 02/23/2019 06:18 pm
I wonder if the thermal issue mentioned is related to the Draco low temp issue mentioned at the FRR debrief as a concern?
That was the impression I got.
Post by: Yeknom-Ecaps on 02/23/2019 06:19 pm
Thanks in advance for any information.
Post by: joek on 02/23/2019 06:28 pm
I wonder if the thermal issue mentioned is related to the Draco low temp issue mentioned at the FRR debrief as a concern?
Likely. I don't recall another thermal issue mentioned? Also unclear if this is related to Draco or propellant thermals, or a combination. Expect that they have been working on a fix as it may also be relevant to current cargo missions--do not see how issues with Super Draco would factor in given the implied context.
Post by: joek on 02/23/2019 06:51 pm
Gerstenmaier mentioned a need/desire for a 24 hour docking time due to thermal constraints (presumably on Dragon). Since this is the first use of an IDA on-orbit, I’m curious what the contingency plans are for dealing with any issues that arise - how many attempts are possible, amount of “loiter time” available to diagnose/work issues, etc.
Original requirement was for docking up to 24hr after launch, with one retry within one orbit after that (see CCT-REQ-1130-146207-DRAFT-001-001 here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0)).
No idea if that has changed since original requirements were issued. If not, Gerst was likely reiterating the requirement. Whether Dragon-2 can provide additional loiter time or docking retries is anyone's guess.
Post by: marsbase on 02/23/2019 07:04 pm
Is there a list of tracking facilities that participate in the tracking of DM-1 at launch and in orbit? Does SpaceX use NASA, USAF and/or commercial tracking facilities to get data to Hawthorne mission control?I understand that SpaceX is required to provide at least one tracking station outside of Florida. They have an operational dish at Boca Chica.
Thanks in advance for any information.
Post by: Yeknom-Ecaps on 02/23/2019 08:42 pm
Has the SpaceX DM-1 logo been released yet? Usually happens after the static fire but I haven't seen one.
Thanks.
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/23/2019 10:09 pm
Has the SpaceX DM-1 logo been released yet? Usually happens after the static fire but I haven't seen one.
You mean the patch? The patch is released along with the press kit around 24h before launch.
Post by: scr00chy on 02/23/2019 10:33 pm
Which "dragon" logo - wings or no wings - is associated with the Crew Dragon? I have seen both in articles.I think the one with wings is an old logo that was superseded by the wingless logo. The old logo appears in some old cinematics so maybe that's why some people assume it's still used?
The DM-1 Crew Dragon only has the new logo painted on it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/31433487287/
Post by: octavo on 02/24/2019 04:03 am
To me this implies that the booster will be landing with a lot of unused propellant if the flight goes well. Should we watch for a bit more crush core movement on landing, or does SpaceX have a way of using up that extra propellant on the way down by adjusting the landing burn on the fly?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/24/2019 04:11 am
In answer to a question about the drone ship landing, Hans said they were reserving performance and flying a lofted trajectory. He added that they may return to lz landings for future dragon 2 flights.
To me this implies that the booster will be landing with a lot of unused propellant if the flight goes well. Should we watch for a bit more crush core movement on landing, or does SpaceX have a way of using up that extra propellant on the way down by adjusting the landing burn on the fly?
The landing software is clearly pretty adaptable. And it takes more propellant to land more propellant. The software could also use different length burns depending on estimated remaining propellant.
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/24/2019 04:13 am
In answer to a question about the drone ship landing, Hans said they were reserving performance and flying a lofted trajectory. He added that they may return to lz landings for future dragon 2 flights.
To me this implies that the booster will be landing with a lot of unused propellant if the flight goes well. Should we watch for a bit more crush core movement on landing, or does SpaceX have a way of using up that extra propellant on the way down by adjusting the landing burn on the fly?
I would say that they would tweak the landing burn a bit. Remember when the Falcon Heavy side boosters did a hoverslam-type landing burn? They used the 1-3-1 engine sequence and it took 17 seconds from the landing burn startup to touchdown.
I have a feeling they might do the same thing with the Crew Dragon first stage boosters from DM-2 onwards.
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/24/2019 04:21 am
In answer to a question about the drone ship landing, Hans said they were reserving performance and flying a lofted trajectory.
The opposite, this flight is not flying on a lofted trajectory so that and the reserve of performance means no land landing. A lofted trajectory is more harder for g loads on entry during an in-flight abort. Cargo doesn't care about that but crew will care. On future missions they could take out part of that performance reserve and use it to land the first stage back on land.
Post by: octavo on 02/24/2019 07:03 am
In answer to a question about the drone ship landing, Hans said they were reserving performance and flying a lofted trajectory.
The opposite, this flight is not flying on a lofted trajectory so that and the reserve of performance means no land landing. A lofted trajectory is more harder for g loads on entry during an in-flight abort. Cargo doesn't care about that but crew will care. On future missions they could take out part of that performance reserve and use it to land the first stage back on land.
I know what a lofted trajectory is and why they're flying it. The point is he said they can do an lz landing even with the lofted trajectory and the drone shop is there not just because of the trajectory, but because they want to reserve performance. Which implies an abundance of caution to me and following from that, more prop in the event of success.
Post by: ZChris13 on 02/24/2019 07:21 am
I know what a lofted trajectory is and why they're flying it.you have it backwards, SpaceX are not flying a lofted trajectory on DM-1, they are throwing the upper stage much lower and faster than the typical lofted trajectories they use for cargo
Post by: su27k on 02/24/2019 07:25 am
In answer to a question about the drone ship landing, Hans said they were reserving performance and flying a lofted trajectory. He added that they may return to lz landings for future dragon 2 flights.
To me this implies that the booster will be landing with a lot of unused propellant if the flight goes well.
It would make much more sense to just burn the reserved propellant during ascend to give extra delta-v to the upper stage and spacecraft.
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/24/2019 11:09 am
In answer to a question about the drone ship landing, Hans said they were reserving performance and flying a lofted trajectory.
The opposite, this flight is not flying on a lofted trajectory so that and the reserve of performance means no land landing. A lofted trajectory is more harder for g loads on entry during an in-flight abort. Cargo doesn't care about that but crew will care. On future missions they could take out part of that performance reserve and use it to land the first stage back on land.
I know what a lofted trajectory is and why they're flying it. The point is he said they can do an lz landing even with the lofted trajectory and the drone shop is there not just because of the trajectory, but because they want to reserve performance. Which implies an abundance of caution to me and following from that, more prop in the event of success.
I told you it is the opposite they are NOT flying a lofted trajectory because of the high g's at reentry. ADDED to that there's also some reserve of performance they're doing to ensure Dragon will get into orbit. He said that on future missions they could probably make it go back to land. The most probable explanation for that is that they still have some room for optimization of the trajectory and wihout that reserve of performance they may be able to land the stage back to land in the future.
Post by: rsnellenberger on 02/24/2019 06:34 pm
My main interest, to be honest, is in the contingency options (if any) that have been developed in the event of an IDA issue.Gerstenmaier mentioned a need/desire for a 24 hour docking time due to thermal constraints (presumably on Dragon). Since this is the first use of an IDA on-orbit, I’m curious what the contingency plans are for dealing with any issues that arise - how many attempts are possible, amount of “loiter time” available to diagnose/work issues, etc.
Original requirement was for docking up to 24hr after launch, with one retry within one orbit after that (see CCT-REQ-1130-146207-DRAFT-001-001 here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0)).
No idea if that has changed since original requirements were issued. If not, Gerst was likely reiterating the requirement. Whether Dragon-2 can provide additional loiter time or docking retries is anyone's guess.
Post by: Targeteer on 02/25/2019 12:21 am
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/25/2019 12:36 am
The 2-burn profile used on GTO missions, or the 3-burn profile as seen in the SpaceX CRS-8 mission?
Post by: Orbiter on 02/25/2019 02:54 am
Since the drone ship will be nearly 500 kilometers away from KSC, what burn profile will the booster use?
The 2-burn profile used on GTO missions, or the 3-burn profile as seen in the SpaceX CRS-8 mission?
Almost certainly a 3-burn profile.
Post by: John Santos on 02/25/2019 03:32 am
The reason for this is they would hate to lose the mission (but not necessarily the Dragon, which I'm pretty sure has normal abort capabilities) and have to do the whole thing all over again just because an M1D died. (Which, IIRC, has only happened once, but that was during the 1st cargo Dragon launch.)
The primary point of this mission is to test Dragon 2 in orbit, not to test the F9, and if they failed to be able to attempt that due to no failing on the Dragon's part, it would be a wasted opportunity.
Someone asked if they would be doing 2 or 3 landing burns. I think the 1st burn is the boost-back burn, which kills all the down-range velocity and sends the F9 back towards the launch site for an LZ landing. Since they aren't doing that, I'm sure there won't be a boost back burn, just the re-entry and landing burns. Two, not three.
I think the 1-3-1 thing pertains to just the landing burn, where they ignite the center engine, then two outer engines, then shutdown the two outer engines just before landing. I think this uses less fuel than a single-engine landing burn.
We'll see in a week, if the press materials they usually release a few days before the launch don't cover all this.
BTW, one thing I'm curious about is the approach and docking procedures. On the first flights of most or all of the cargo vessels (ATV, HTV, Cygnus and Cargo Dragon), they did several "practice" approaches with holds and sometimes simulated emergency back-offs as they tested the approach. Are they planning to do that kind of testing this time, or just come in and dock? (Especially because they will be docking rather than just station-keeping close enough to be grabbed and berthed by the SSRMS. The only previous cargo vessels to dock rather than berth were Progress and ATV, which used the Progress automated docking hardware and software, IIRC.)
Post by: woods170 on 02/25/2019 06:25 am
What makes sense to me is they would plan to use all the reserve propellant during the first stage burn. This would leave a lot of extra performance on the table beyond what the 2nd stage will need to provide. But if they lose an engine during 1st stage, they could use that 2nd stage excess to complete the mission. To maximize this contingency, they will land on the drone ship way down range, rather than doing a boost-back and landing at LZ-1.
The reason for this is they would hate to lose the mission (but not necessarily the Dragon, which I'm pretty sure has normal abort capabilities) and have to do the whole thing all over again just because an M1D died. (Which, IIRC, has only happened once, but that was during the 1st cargo Dragon launch.)
<snip>
Emphasis mine.
On the CRS-1 mission the launch vehicle (Falcon 9 v1.0) lost an engine during ascent. That was not an M1D, but an earlier M1C. That's because Falcon 9 v1.0 flew with M1C's only. M1D's started flying with the introduction of F9 v1.1.
SpaceX, to this date, has never suffered an inflight-failure of an M1D engine.
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/25/2019 07:40 am
Someone asked if they would be doing 2 or 3 landing burns. I think the 1st burn is the boost-back burn, which kills all the down-range velocity and sends the F9 back towards the launch site for an LZ landing. Since they aren't doing that, I'm sure there won't be a boost back burn, just the re-entry and landing burns. Two, not three.
I think the 1-3-1 thing pertains to just the landing burn, where they ignite the center engine, then two outer engines, then shutdown the two outer engines just before landing. I think this uses less fuel than a single-engine landing burn.
They do boostbacks for droneship landings too, those just cancel horizontal velocity and not reverse it to land, but they perform those too. The 1-3-1 profile is the usual one for boostback burn and reentry burn. Landing burn could be just 1 or 1-3-1 depending on their needs and they have done both on multiple and different landing scenarios.
Post by: Lars-J on 02/25/2019 04:27 pm
Someone asked if they would be doing 2 or 3 landing burns. I think the 1st burn is the boost-back burn, which kills all the down-range velocity and sends the F9 back towards the launch site for an LZ landing. Since they aren't doing that, I'm sure there won't be a boost back burn, just the re-entry and landing burns. Two, not three.
I think the 1-3-1 thing pertains to just the landing burn, where they ignite the center engine, then two outer engines, then shutdown the two outer engines just before landing. I think this uses less fuel than a single-engine landing burn.
They do boostbacks for droneship landings too, those just cancel horizontal velocity and not reverse it to land, but they perform those too. The 1-3-1 profile is the usual one for boostback burn and reentry burn. Landing burn could be just 1 or 1-3-1 depending on their needs and they have done both on multiple and different landing scenarios.
Maybe you mean that those burns adjust the horizontal velocity, because they certainly don't outright cancel the horizontal velocity. That would make them fall straight down, which would be unnecessary and a waste of propellant.
The burns done right after stage separation for barge landings are more accurately described as aiming burns, to aim the ballistic impact point near the barge.
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/25/2019 04:42 pm
Someone asked if they would be doing 2 or 3 landing burns. I think the 1st burn is the boost-back burn, which kills all the down-range velocity and sends the F9 back towards the launch site for an LZ landing. Since they aren't doing that, I'm sure there won't be a boost back burn, just the re-entry and landing burns. Two, not three.
I think the 1-3-1 thing pertains to just the landing burn, where they ignite the center engine, then two outer engines, then shutdown the two outer engines just before landing. I think this uses less fuel than a single-engine landing burn.
They do boostbacks for droneship landings too, those just cancel horizontal velocity and not reverse it to land, but they perform those too. The 1-3-1 profile is the usual one for boostback burn and reentry burn. Landing burn could be just 1 or 1-3-1 depending on their needs and they have done both on multiple and different landing scenarios.
Maybe you mean that those burns adjust the horizontal velocity, because they certainly don't outright cancel the horizontal velocity. That would make them fall straight down, which would be unnecessary and a waste of propellant.
The burns done right after stage separation for barge landings are more accurately described as aiming burns, to aim the ballistic impact point near the barge.
Would you prefer "reduce by a lot" the horizontal velocity?
Post by: Citabria on 02/25/2019 04:59 pm
Would you prefer "reduce by a lot" the horizontal velocity?
Or, you could use numbers. Just a thought.
Post by: Lars-J on 02/25/2019 05:11 pm
They do boostbacks for droneship landings too, those just cancel horizontal velocity and not reverse it to land, but they perform those too. The 1-3-1 profile is the usual one for boostback burn and reentry burn. Landing burn could be just 1 or 1-3-1 depending on their needs and they have done both on multiple and different landing scenarios.
Maybe you mean that those burns adjust the horizontal velocity, because they certainly don't outright cancel the horizontal velocity. That would make them fall straight down, which would be unnecessary and a waste of propellant.
The burns done right after stage separation for barge landings are more accurately described as aiming burns, to aim the ballistic impact point near the barge.
Would you prefer "reduce by a lot" the horizontal velocity?
You are assuming it is reducing it. To aim to the landing site, you could hypothetically have a boost-forward or boost sideways. But most of the time it will just reduce it... And not necessarily by a lot (again, wastes propellant), it just depends where the barge is placed which is probably calculated by how much margin they think they will have. SpaceX would prefer to have the barge closer to land for faster recovery, but it also increases the recovery propellant needs. So it is a trade-off.
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/25/2019 05:55 pm
Would you prefer "reduce by a lot" the horizontal velocity?
Or, you could use numbers. Just a thought.
Then I would need different numbers for different missions and we wouldn't finish this conversation :)
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/26/2019 06:29 pm
Post by: wardy89 on 02/26/2019 08:36 pm
Launch Hazard Areas (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?hl=en&mid=17sTdDuaLN-EJeuALqkvhM2hULM5lvIKZ&ll=30.066028046624698%2C-79.54866692557653&z=7) for SpaceX Mission 1377 DM1 according NOTMAR message, valid for Saturday 02 Mar 07:40-08:20 UTC - alternate Tuesday 05 Mar 06:30-07:10 UTC.
Marked droneship landing for B1051.
Next two unusual Hazard Areas further in the flight path located east of Newfoundland island and west of Ireland.
Appropriate NOTAMs would be included later.
Could the the Hazard areas further down range relate to Launch abort scenarios further into flight but before orbital velocity? with potential splash down areas close to land for fast recovery?
Post by: Comga on 02/26/2019 10:45 pm
Launch Hazard Areas (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?hl=en&mid=17sTdDuaLN-EJeuALqkvhM2hULM5lvIKZ&ll=30.066028046624698%2C-79.54866692557653&z=7) for SpaceX Mission 1377 DM1 according NOTMAR message, valid for Saturday 02 Mar 07:40-08:20 UTC - alternate Tuesday 05 Mar 06:30-07:10 UTC.
Marked droneship landing for B1051.
Next two unusual Hazard Areas further in the flight path located east of Newfoundland island and west of Ireland.
Appropriate NOTAMs would be included later.
The location of the ASDS is beyond the middle of the second hazard zone, which is presumably for the first stage reentering ballisticly
Does this say that there will be very little or no velocity scrubbed after staging?
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 02/26/2019 10:47 pm
Not sure where to post this; NASA has released a hi-res version of the Dragon 2 docking render from SpaceX.I could wait for Saturday to confirm or not my thought that the IDA was designed with a drop down from the old docking port to the new docking port to make sure Dragon 2’s hat doesn’t contact the ISS?
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 02/26/2019 11:36 pm
Not sure where to post this; NASA has released a hi-res version of the Dragon 2 docking render from SpaceX.I could wait for Saturday to confirm or not my thought that the IDA was designed with a drop down from the old docking port to the new docking port to make sure Dragon 2’s hat doesn’t contact the ISS?
The IDA is only the White part.. just a straight adapter to the Shuttle era PMAs(black part with drop down)
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/26/2019 11:39 pm
Not sure where to post this; NASA has released a hi-res version of the Dragon 2 docking render from SpaceX.I could wait for Saturday to confirm or not my thought that the IDA was designed with a drop down from the old docking port to the new docking port to make sure Dragon 2’s hat doesn’t contact the ISS?
More like Dragon was designed around IDA.
Post by: kessdawg on 02/26/2019 11:48 pm
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 02/27/2019 12:53 am
Not sure where to post this; NASA has released a hi-res version of the Dragon 2 docking render from SpaceX.I could wait for Saturday to confirm or not my thought that the IDA was designed with a drop down from the old docking port to the new docking port to make sure Dragon 2’s hat doesn’t contact the ISS?
More like Dragon was designed around IDA.
I had thought the whole IDA/PMA were new but a look at the past via Wikipedia shows the PMA and Discovery. So it looks like the PMA was designed with the drop down so the shuttles could dock.
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/27/2019 12:54 am
Possibly stupid question. Do they have some sort of test on board to replace the astronauts expelling CO2?
It should have a full ECLSS if it is identical to DM-2 as Hans has indicated.
Post by: gongora on 02/27/2019 01:56 am
Possibly stupid question. Do they have some sort of test on board to replace the astronauts expelling CO2?
It should have a full ECLSS if it is identical to DM-2 as Hans has indicated.
I don't think they have anything to simulate the ECLSS usage of astronauts on DM-1 (and Hans doesn't always get every detail correct in the press conferences.)
Post by: kessdawg on 02/27/2019 04:08 am
Possibly stupid question. Do they have some sort of test on board to replace the astronauts expelling CO2?
It should have a full ECLSS if it is identical to DM-2 as Hans has indicated.
I don't think they have anything to simulate the ECLSS usage of astronauts on DM-1 (and Hans doesn't always get every detail correct in the press conferences.)
Yeah that was more my question. Thanks.
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/27/2019 04:38 am
Possibly stupid question. Do they have some sort of test on board to replace the astronauts expelling CO2?
It should have a full ECLSS if it is identical to DM-2 as Hans has indicated.
I don't think they have anything to simulate the ECLSS usage of astronauts on DM-1 (and Hans doesn't always get every detail correct in the press conferences.)
Yeah that was more my question. Thanks.
ah. There ought to be some usage once it is inhabited while connected on station. Hopefully this will be discussed during the webcasts that are planned.
Post by: jcm on 02/27/2019 05:34 am
Post by: nacnud on 02/27/2019 11:29 am
I had thought the whole IDA/PMA were new but a look at the past via Wikipedia shows the PMA and Discovery. So it looks like the PMA was designed with the drop down so the shuttles could dock.
I think the PMA shape is more to do with accommodating the internal hatches and keeping the passageway as clear as possible. There is some discussion of it here: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/19564/why-is-the-pressurized-mating-adapter-slanted
Interesting how past decisions can effect future designs.
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/27/2019 01:49 pm
"Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now: Hi, Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now, again. One question for maybe Hans or Kathy. Do you know about what the weight of the spacecraft is, in terms of pounds or kilograms at launch with all the fuel and cargo or crew loaded. About how heavy is it? And a little way ahead for the next week, you mentioned testing and analysis, what sort of milestones do you have over the next seven days to get ready for the launch? Fueling of the spacecraft with hypergolic fuel, et cetera.
Kathy Lueders, CCP: Well, the spacecraft, I'll have Stephanie get the specifics, she can get the specific weight, but the spacecraft's fueled right now. It's fueled, it's ready to go. It's over. And our folks have been following along with the fueling operation. We're moving towards obviously getting ready for Launch Readiness Review, which I think right now is the 27th. And we're rolling out to the pad on the 28th."
- Ed Kyle
Post by: abaddon on 02/27/2019 02:03 pm
From the press briefing (below). I hope Stephen got his answer (drives me crazy that they don't share the numbers with the public). The "Internet" suggests Crew Dragon may weigh 11-ish tonnes fueled without cargo, and up to 14+ tonnes with cargo. Whatever the DM1 number, I expect this to be the heaviest-ever Falcon 9 payload.Based on the analysis in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47499.msg1915348#msg1915348), that should be within reasonable bounds of the F9R capability with an ASDS landing, with some margin. Unclear what an RTLS landing would do to that and how much margin it would leave, seems to me it might be a little thin.
Post by: Crispy on 02/27/2019 02:47 pm
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2019 05:07 pm
Crewed Dragon will be flying a flatter ascent profile in order to provide safer abort conditions. This makes ASDS landing a certainty.
A flatter ascent profile does not prevent RTLS, it just means that extra propellant has to be spent to get the stage back that way.
So it is not a certainty, it was even mentioned in the press conference that RTLS would be a possibility depending on future margin/performance. Extra margin has been reserved for this flight, margin which may be reduced/relaxed in the future.
Post by: LouScheffer on 02/27/2019 06:43 pm
The performance for RTLS is almost surely there. For example, X-37 (RTLS) staged at 1629 m/s and Telstar 18 (ASDS), staged at 2271 m/s, a 642 m/s difference. We know from the recent Nusantara launch that SpaceX can put 17.1t into parking orbit with ASDS recovery. If they remove 642 m/s for RTLS, they can make this up provided the payload mass is no more than 13t. When they did the pad abort test, the mass (from this article (https://www.americaspace.com/2015/05/01/spacex-nasa-discuss-forthcoming-dragon-pad-abort-test/)) was 11,115 kg, and I'd guess they'd use maximum mass for that test. They will lose some for a higher inclination orbit and higher perigee, but they should be able to do quite a bit of trajectory flattening and still RTLS.Crewed Dragon will be flying a flatter ascent profile in order to provide safer abort conditions. This makes ASDS landing a certainty.
A flatter ascent profile does not prevent RTLS, it just means that extra propellant has to be spent to get the stage back that way.
So it is not a certainty, it was even mentioned in the press conference that RTLS would be a possibility depending on future margin/performance. Extra margin has been reserved for this flight, margin which may be reduced/relaxed in the future.
Similarly, NASA's LSP web site says Falcon 9 RTLS can put 10860 kg into a 51.6o, 400 km circular orbit. The current performance on GTO launches indicates performance about 6% better than the LSP numbers. So they could RTLS with a Dragon-2 of the same mass as the launch abort test.
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 02/27/2019 07:58 pm
I may have missed this upthread, but do we know if the DM-1 trunk is empty or does it have some unpressurized cargo aboard?
Nice question. But I myself would think they would avoid putting anything in the trunk, at least for the first few missions, because the extra weight and that weight's location would probably affect the dynamics of an launch abort.
It probably would. Which means that if you want to validate the abort system's effectiveness in all envisaged circumstances, it should be at its maximum launch weight.
Post by: abaddon on 02/27/2019 08:31 pm
It probably would. Which means that if you want to validate the abort system's effectiveness in all envisaged circumstances, it should be at its maximum launch weight.No, for all envisioned circumstances an empty trunk might be quite a bit different from a full trunk and should also be included. As should a trunk with a lot of heavy stuff mounted on one side.
Maybe we really need 10 in-flight abort tests, just to make absolutely sure.
Also this isn't the in-flight abort thread, so we should probably
Post by: JimO on 02/28/2019 04:18 am
Post by: envy887 on 02/28/2019 12:05 pm
...QuoteLAUNCH, LANDING AND DRAGON DEPLOYMENT
(all times are approximate)
Hour/Min/Sec Events
+00:00:58 Max Q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket)
+00:02:33 1st stage main engine cutoff (MECO)
+00:02:38 1st and 2nd stages separate
+00:02:44 2nd stage engine starts
+00:07:48 1st stage entry burn
+00:08:57 2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO-1)
+00:09:26 1st stage entry burn
+00:09:37 1st stage landing
+00:10:59 Crew Dragon separates from 2nd stage
+00:12:00 Dragon nosecone open sequence begins
Why are there 2 first stage entry burns? From the listed times, the 2nd one should be the landing burn, although 11 seconds is a short landing burn. Usually those are 30 sec for a single engine landing.
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/28/2019 12:26 pm
...QuoteLAUNCH, LANDING AND DRAGON DEPLOYMENT
(all times are approximate)
Hour/Min/Sec Events
+00:00:58 Max Q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket)
+00:02:33 1st stage main engine cutoff (MECO)
+00:02:38 1st and 2nd stages separate
+00:02:44 2nd stage engine starts
+00:07:48 1st stage entry burn
+00:08:57 2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO-1)
+00:09:26 1st stage entry burn
+00:09:37 1st stage landing
+00:10:59 Crew Dragon separates from 2nd stage
+00:12:00 Dragon nosecone open sequence begins
Why are there 2 first stage entry burns? From the listed times, the seconds one should be the landing burn, although 11 seconds is a short landing burn. Usually those are 30 sec for a single engine landing.
You're right. They meant to write "1st stage landing burn" at T+09:26. And it's an 11-second landing burn because they want to do a high retrothrust burn similar to the one we heard about for GovSat 1.
Post by: PahTo on 02/28/2019 02:53 pm
From the press briefing (below). I hope Stephen got his answer (drives me crazy that they don't share the numbers with the public). The "Internet" suggests Crew Dragon may weigh 11-ish tonnes fueled without cargo, and up to 14+ tonnes with cargo. Whatever the DM1 number, I expect this to be the heaviest-ever Falcon 9 payload.
"Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now: Hi, Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now, again. One question for maybe Hans or Kathy. Do you know about what the weight of the spacecraft is, in terms of pounds or kilograms at launch with all the fuel and cargo or crew loaded. About how heavy is it? And a little way ahead for the next week, you mentioned testing and analysis, what sort of milestones do you have over the next seven days to get ready for the launch? Fueling of the spacecraft with hypergolic fuel, et cetera.
[snip]
- Ed Kyle
Really interesting discussion about performance, RTLS, flatter trajectory. Does anyone know how the DM1 vehicle is configured? (sorry if I missed it, please point me). That is, are there four seats with approx 225lb bags of ballast, supplies arranged in the cabin as they would be for a manned mission, some ballast in the trunk to simulate non-pressurized cargo (would they even do that, or is the ECLSS housed in the trunk)? Obviously I haven't followed Dragon 2 very closely, thanks for the "instant education"--time to get to know the future...
Post by: Rondaz on 02/28/2019 03:03 pm
By Eric Ralph Posted on February 28, 2019
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-crew-dragon-falcon-9-rollout/
Post by: spacebleachers on 02/28/2019 03:06 pm
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/28/2019 03:49 pm
From the press briefing (below). I hope Stephen got his answer (drives me crazy that they don't share the numbers with the public). The "Internet" suggests Crew Dragon may weigh 11-ish tonnes fueled without cargo, and up to 14+ tonnes with cargo. Whatever the DM1 number, I expect this to be the heaviest-ever Falcon 9 payload.
"Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now: Hi, Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now, again. One question for maybe Hans or Kathy. Do you know about what the weight of the spacecraft is, in terms of pounds or kilograms at launch with all the fuel and cargo or crew loaded. About how heavy is it? And a little way ahead for the next week, you mentioned testing and analysis, what sort of milestones do you have over the next seven days to get ready for the launch? Fueling of the spacecraft with hypergolic fuel, et cetera.
[snip]
- Ed Kyle
Really interesting discussion about performance, RTLS, flatter trajectory. Does anyone know how the DM1 vehicle is configured? (sorry if I missed it, please point me). That is, are there four seats with approx 225lb bags of ballast, supplies arranged in the cabin as they would be for a manned mission, some ballast in the trunk to simulate non-pressurized cargo (would they even do that, or is the ECLSS housed in the trunk)? Obviously I haven't followed Dragon 2 very closely, thanks for the "instant education"--time to get to know the future...
I recall someone (Gerst?) saying the weight of the people was negligible so I do not think there is ballast for those seats, except for the lone Starman.
Post by: Rondaz on 02/28/2019 04:33 pm
Anna Heiney Posted on February 28, 2019
The first launch of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft aboard the company’s Falcon 9 rocket is now only two days away. Liftoff of the uncrewed flight test, called Demo-1, is targeted for 2:49 a.m. EST from Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39A. The milestone will mark the first launch of a commercially built American rocket and spacecraft designed to carry astronauts to the International Space Station.
Meteorologists with the U.S. Air Force’s 45th Weather Squadron continue to predict an 80 percent chance of favorable weather for launch on Saturday morning, with the possibility of thick clouds or cumulus clouds posing the main concern.
NASA will broadcast a prelaunch briefing from Kennedy at 4 p.m. today. Participants are:
Kathy Lueders, manager, NASA Commercial Crew Program
Joel Montalbano, deputy manager, International Space Station Program
Hans Koenigsmann, vice president, Build and Flight Reliability, SpaceX
Pat Forrester, chief, Astronaut Office, Johnson Space Center
Melody C. Lovin, launch weather officer, 45th Weather Squadron
Learn more about the mission and NASA’s Commercial Crew Program in the press kit and by following the @commercial_crew on Twitter and commercial crew on Facebook.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/02/28/weather-prediction-80-percent-go-for-demo-1-launch-televised-prelaunch-briefing-today/
Post by: DaveJ576 on 02/28/2019 05:05 pm
Post by: OccasionalTraveller on 02/28/2019 05:29 pm
Clarification needed: Does the nose cap stay open the whole time on orbit, or does it open only during the rendezvous and docking phase? SpaceX animation indicates the later.
The timeline shows nosecone opening starting at +12 minutes into the mission, just over one minute after separation from the second stage. No indication how long it stays open for after undocking, but I would imagine it might stay open for some time after to make it easier to dock again if required. It certainly has to close (or be jettisoned) for re-entry. The press kit states five hours between undocking and deorbit burn, so some time in between those two points!
We know that it can be jettisoned in an emergency, since there are buttons to trigger the pyros on the control panel.
Post by: DecoLV on 02/28/2019 05:32 pm
Post by: Norm38 on 02/28/2019 05:33 pm
Post by: abaddon on 02/28/2019 05:37 pm
On rollout, cargo dragons (CRS-16) didn't roll to the pad until the day of launch. Why are they rolling out today instead of Saturday?Well, the launch is at 2:48am Saturday, so they would roll out Friday. A day early doesn't seem surprising to me when it's the first Crew vehicle launch.
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/28/2019 05:48 pm
On rollout, cargo dragons (CRS-16) didn't roll to the pad until the day of launch. Why are they rolling out today instead of Saturday?
More time for the press to get video coverage and standup interviews with the vehicle stack as the backdrop. It is the first crew rated US spacecraft going up since the last Shuttle landed in 2011.
Post by: MostlyHarmless on 02/28/2019 05:52 pm
On rollout, cargo dragons (CRS-16) didn't roll to the pad until the day of launch. Why are they rolling out today instead of Saturday?
Also, could be because there is probably less time-critical cargo to loaded for this test flight?
Post by: High Bay 4 on 02/28/2019 05:58 pm
Post by: MostlyHarmless on 02/28/2019 06:00 pm
T-0 was 2:48. Where did the extra minute come from?
Liftoff times are sometimes adjusted as the ISS orbital parameters are refined by NORAD. Aligning exactly with the ISS orbital plane means less delta-V needed for plane adjustments.
At least that's my semi-educated guess. :o
Post by: NX-0 on 02/28/2019 06:02 pm
On rollout, cargo dragons (CRS-16) didn't roll to the pad until the day of launch. Why are they rolling out today instead of Saturday?
Also, could be because there is probably less time-critical cargo to loaded for this test flight?
With the Crew Access Arm, it should be easier to access for late-stow.
I wonder if Cargo D2 will allow that option.
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/28/2019 06:02 pm
T-0 was 2:48. Where did the extra minute come from?
As the launch approaches the launch time is refined with updated orbital ISS data and it is now at 07:49:03 UTC. I wouldn't be surprised if it moves a few seconds left or right in these few dozen hours until launch.
Post by: Norm38 on 02/28/2019 06:15 pm
Well, the launch is at 2:48am Saturday, so they would roll out Friday. A day early doesn't seem surprising to me when it's the first Crew vehicle launch.
***Smacks forehead***
Somehow I was off a day, thinking the launch was Saturday night/Sunday morning. But it's tomorrow night. Hey, one less day to wait!
Post by: Lars-J on 02/28/2019 07:43 pm
Clarification needed: Does the nose cap stay open the whole time on orbit, or does it open only during the rendezvous and docking phase? SpaceX animation indicates the later.
I believe the star trackers are under the nose cap, so the nose cap will likely open quickly after launch and stay open until shortly before re-entry.
Post by: bkellysky on 02/28/2019 09:16 pm
Launch time in the oh-so-dark. I assume that's orbital dynamics with the ISS' orbit? It seems like in the 1960s they tried to do daylight launches to get the best views.
In the eastern USA is there a chance to see powered flight (8 minutes 57 seconds up along the east coast, like the STS) or is the 'flat' trajectory keeping it below our horizon?
We have a low in the northwest overflight of the ISS a few hours before docking. Heavens-above.com predicts magnitude -1.9, not as bright as typically. Is that too low and too dim to see Dragon?
https://heavens-above.com/passdetails.aspx?lat=41.034&lng=-73.7629&loc=White+Plains&alt=65&tz=EST&satid=25544&mjd=58545.4088050497&type=V
Thank you - pointing to where I may have missed the answer to the first question would be fine.
If you have a link I missed to visibility of Dragon's powered flight, let me know.
Of course, the weather not looking favorable in the northeast USA this weekend.
bob
Post by: ZChris13 on 02/28/2019 10:04 pm
During the CRS-16 pre-launch briefing Hans mentioned using Firing Room 4 at the LC-39 LCC for future launches. Anyone know if it will be used for this Saturday's DM-1 launch?that was confirmed in the briefing on NASA TV a few hours ago, they are in Firing Room 4.
Post by: Almurray1958 on 02/28/2019 10:23 pm
Launch time in the oh-so-dark. I assume that's orbital dynamics with the ISS' orbit? It seems like in the 1960s they tried to do daylight launches to get the best views.
--yes, launch time is dictated by orbital mechanics. When the orbital plane comes closest to te launch site si when they'll launch.
In the eastern USA is there a chance to see powered flight (8 minutes 57 seconds up along the east coast, like the STS) or is the 'flat' trajectory keeping it below our horizon?
probably not, the launch vector is pretty much eastward and won't be visible this far north
We have a low in the northwest overflight of the ISS a few hours before docking. Heavens-above.com predicts magnitude -1.9, not as bright as typically. Is that too low and too dim to see Dragon?
https://heavens-above.com/passdetails.aspx?lat=41.034&lng=-73.7629&loc=White+Plains&alt=65&tz=EST&sa...
- the pass is very low in the NW, no higher than 19° from 42 north. If you have a good northern horizon and clear skies and dark skies, then maybe. But your tag mentions NYC, so...
Thank you - pointing to where I may have missed the answer to the first question would be fine.
If you have a link I missed to visibility of Dragon's powered flight, let me know.
Of course, the weather not looking favorable in the northeast USA this weekend.
bob
Post by: ejb749 on 02/28/2019 10:25 pm
Anyone know if the mannequin is already loaded, or will they be using the access arm?
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 03/01/2019 01:30 am
I’m curious as to what is the minimum to be considered mission success for this Dragon ?
What has to work 100% ??..what could fail or partially fail, and not require a re-flight before NASA would allow a manned Dragon ??
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/01/2019 04:17 am
I’m curious as to what is the minimum to be considered mission success for this Dragon ?
That it comes back in one piece and doesn't crash into ISS. An unsuccessful rendezvous and docking would probably mean crew would fly next anyway, as they can do a manual docking if the automatic systems still has bugs.
Post by: punder on 03/01/2019 04:17 am
Iain M. Banks is my favorite science fiction author. Well, maybe after RAH. And Ripley is my favorite sci-fi movie hero. SpaceX punches all my buttons anyway, but it's gratifying that they also seem to share my own personal space craziness... or should I say, I share theirs.
Watching the last couple of press conferences, obviously Kathy and Hans have developed a personal bond. Technology is great. But it's people who make technology happen, who use technology to achieve their goals--really, to realize their dreams--and, I'm not ashamed to say, it warmed my heart to watch these people joking and poking each other and smiling in the midst of this deadly serious endeavor. Good luck to them, and to all of us.
Post by: docmordrid on 03/01/2019 06:17 am
Ripley
1:37 AM - Mar 1, 2019
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1101370880486076416
Post by: Norm38 on 03/01/2019 02:02 pm
Some confusion on the Russian stance per Dragon 2's DM-1 docking. On ISS Space to Ground - they are still NO GO for Dragon 2 DM-1 docking.
Recording of the conversation by https://twitter.com/Sunny_820
Conversation was 1 pm UTC today.
"What the heck!" is right. The Russians want the station crew huddled by the Soyuz, braced for impact?
All 16 Dragon missions have seen the ship come very gently, very slowly, very controlled up to the station. And they're acting like some completely untested thing is going to plow into them.
How much authority does Russia have to deny docking? Can the US deny a Progress/Soyuz docking?
Post by: MattMason on 03/01/2019 02:22 pm
Some confusion on the Russian stance per Dragon 2's DM-1 docking. On ISS Space to Ground - they are still NO GO for Dragon 2 DM-1 docking.
Recording of the conversation by https://twitter.com/Sunny_820
Conversation was 1 pm UTC today.
"What the heck!" is right. The Russians want the station crew huddled by the Soyuz, braced for impact?
All 16 Dragon missions have seen the ship come very gently, very slowly, very controlled up to the station. And they're acting like some completely untested thing is going to plow into them.
How much authority does Russia have to deny docking? Can the US deny a Progress/Soyuz docking?
I appreciate their concern, especially since their nearly exclusive use of autonomous docking for everything they have (including station modules) have resulted in two or three collisions. ???
That said, the US autonomous system isn't a third-party system as KURS is. In my opinion, the US has far greater technical sophistication in spacecraft systems in general. Proof? How many successful Mars landings or orbiters has Russian/Soviet technology made over the years?
And, lately, the US is really overdoing their risk management reviews to ensure that such a collision event is virtually unlikely.
A Crew Dragon is certainly using the same tech used by a small Dragon spacecraft (that arrives pretty darned close to the ISS) before being berthed.
Post by: gongora on 03/01/2019 02:34 pm
Post by: abaddon on 03/01/2019 02:41 pm
From the press briefing (below). I hope Stephen got his answer (drives me crazy that they don't share the numbers with the public). The "Internet" suggests Crew Dragon may weigh 11-ish tonnes fueled without cargo, and up to 14+ tonnes with cargo. Whatever the DM1 number, I expect this to be the heaviest-ever Falcon 9 payload.So, as linked in the update thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47095.msg1916430#msg1916430), we have our answer: Crew Dragon and cargo mass 26577 pounds (isn't that a very precise number) or 12055 kilograms / 12 metric tons. The cargo is 449.7 pounds (but does this include Ripley? Probably not). So we're looking at ~11.75 fueled for DM-1 Crew Dragon, sans cargo.
"Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now: Hi, Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now, again. One question for maybe Hans or Kathy. Do you know about what the weight of the spacecraft is, in terms of pounds or kilograms at launch with all the fuel and cargo or crew loaded. About how heavy is it? And a little way ahead for the next week, you mentioned testing and analysis, what sort of milestones do you have over the next seven days to get ready for the launch? Fueling of the spacecraft with hypergolic fuel, et cetera.
Kathy Lueders, CCP: Well, the spacecraft, I'll have Stephanie get the specifics, she can get the specific weight, but the spacecraft's fueled right now. It's fueled, it's ready to go. It's over. And our folks have been following along with the fueling operation. We're moving towards obviously getting ready for Launch Readiness Review, which I think right now is the 27th. And we're rolling out to the pad on the 28th."
- Ed Kyle
Post by: daedalus1 on 03/01/2019 02:43 pm
This is a mission thread. Please keep the discussion on DM-1, not what you think of the Russian space program.
The Russians queried the safety of the Dragon, so they made themselves part of this thread.
Post by: abaddon on 03/01/2019 02:48 pm
I would suggest discussion of the lack of Russian approval for docking is on topic, general aspersions of the Russian space program are not...This is a mission thread. Please keep the discussion on DM-1, not what you think of the Russian space program.
The Russians queried the safety of the Dragon, so they made themselves part of this thread.
Post by: butters on 03/01/2019 03:24 pm
I also found it interesting that the Russians seemed to feel as if all the information has been dumped on them at the last minute. This program is no spring chicken, SpaceX and NASA have been fighting the battle of paperwork mountain for years, and on the eve of launch, the Russians are surprised by approach rates? It's almost hard to believe, but then again, the flow of information on this program has been tightly controlled and relatively inscrutable from the outside.
Post by: MattMason on 03/01/2019 03:35 pm
This is a mission thread. Please keep the discussion on DM-1, not what you think of the Russian space program.
Understood and apologies for any toe-stepping. Not attempting to start a bait on that but only to contrast a relevant fact, especially in light of past CRS and other automated visiting vehicles, Russian or otherwise.
Post by: BeamRider on 03/01/2019 03:43 pm
Ps. Saw two successive passes while a Cygnus module was approaching ISS, and the angular sep was reduced from ~10 deg on first pass to “double star” proximity on second. Very cool experience!
Post by: envy887 on 03/01/2019 03:48 pm
From the press briefing (below). I hope Stephen got his answer (drives me crazy that they don't share the numbers with the public). The "Internet" suggests Crew Dragon may weigh 11-ish tonnes fueled without cargo, and up to 14+ tonnes with cargo. Whatever the DM1 number, I expect this to be the heaviest-ever Falcon 9 payload.So, as linked in the update thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47095.msg1916430#msg1916430), we have our answer: Crew Dragon and cargo mass 26577 pounds (isn't that a very precise number) or 12055 kilograms / 12 metric tons. The cargo is 449.7 pounds (but does this include Ripley? Probably not). So we're looking at ~11.75 fueled for DM-1 Crew Dragon, sans cargo.
"Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now: Hi, Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now, again. One question for maybe Hans or Kathy. Do you know about what the weight of the spacecraft is, in terms of pounds or kilograms at launch with all the fuel and cargo or crew loaded. About how heavy is it? And a little way ahead for the next week, you mentioned testing and analysis, what sort of milestones do you have over the next seven days to get ready for the launch? Fueling of the spacecraft with hypergolic fuel, et cetera.
Kathy Lueders, CCP: Well, the spacecraft, I'll have Stephanie get the specifics, she can get the specific weight, but the spacecraft's fueled right now. It's fueled, it's ready to go. It's over. And our folks have been following along with the fueling operation. We're moving towards obviously getting ready for Launch Readiness Review, which I think right now is the 27th. And we're rolling out to the pad on the 28th."
- Ed Kyle
Per Stephen Clark's updates, that is the docking mass, not the launch mass. Dragon 2 doesn't shed any fairings between launch and docking, so except for some expended Draco RCS fuel I'm not sure what the difference would be.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/01/2019 04:10 pm
Post by: AU1.52 on 03/01/2019 04:20 pm
...QuoteLAUNCH, LANDING AND DRAGON DEPLOYMENT
(all times are approximate)
Hour/Min/Sec Events
+00:00:58 Max Q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket)
+00:02:33 1st stage main engine cutoff (MECO)
+00:02:38 1st and 2nd stages separate
+00:02:44 2nd stage engine starts
+00:07:48 1st stage entry burn
+00:08:57 2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO-1)
+00:09:26 1st stage entry burn
+00:09:37 1st stage landing
+00:10:59 Crew Dragon separates from 2nd stage
+00:12:00 Dragon nosecone open sequence begins
Why are there 2 first stage entry burns? From the listed times, the 2nd one should be the landing burn, although 11 seconds is a short landing burn. Usually those are 30 sec for a single engine landing.
Also do we know why they are opening the nose cone so early? Would not keeping it closed be an extra protection from MMOD possible damage to the dock? Are they opening it early to check they can open it?
Post by: kevinof on 03/01/2019 04:24 pm
...QuoteLAUNCH, LANDING AND DRAGON DEPLOYMENT
(all times are approximate)
Hour/Min/Sec Events
+00:00:58 Max Q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket)
+00:02:33 1st stage main engine cutoff (MECO)
+00:02:38 1st and 2nd stages separate
+00:02:44 2nd stage engine starts
+00:07:48 1st stage entry burn
+00:08:57 2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO-1)
+00:09:26 1st stage entry burn
+00:09:37 1st stage landing
+00:10:59 Crew Dragon separates from 2nd stage
+00:12:00 Dragon nosecone open sequence begins
Why are there 2 first stage entry burns? From the listed times, the 2nd one should be the landing burn, although 11 seconds is a short landing burn. Usually those are 30 sec for a single engine landing.
Also do we know why they are opening the nose cone so early? Would not keeping it closed be an extra protection from MMOD possible damage to the dock? Are they opening it early to check they can open it?
Post by: Joffan on 03/01/2019 04:25 pm
Also do we know why they are opening the nose cone so early? Would not keeping it closed be an extra protection from MMOD possible damage to the dock? Are they opening it early to check they can open it?
This very plausible answer is that the star tracker is under the nose cone; so the cap needs to be open for Dragon to navigate:
I believe the star trackers are under the nose cap, so the nose cap will likely open quickly after launch and stay open until shortly before re-entry.
Post by: JBF on 03/01/2019 04:32 pm
Also do we know why they are opening the nose cone so early? Would not keeping it closed be an extra protection from MMOD possible damage to the dock? Are they opening it early to check they can open it?
This very plausible answer is that the star tracker is under the nose cone; so the cap needs to be open for Dragon to navigate:I believe the star trackers are under the nose cap, so the nose cap will likely open quickly after launch and stay open until shortly before re-entry.
Additionally if they have to jettison the cap it is better to do it safely out of the way
Post by: Phillip Clark on 03/01/2019 05:59 pm
To date the US cargo freighters to ISS have been incapable of completing a fully-automatic docking: they are always parked close to ISS and then brought in to berthing using a remote manipulator.
Compare with the Soviet Union/Russia. They completed the first docking between unmanned spacecraft in 1967 when Cosmos 186 and Cosmos 188 (unmanned Soyuz spacecraft) completed an unmanned docking. The first unmanned docking with a space station was in 1975 when the unmanned Soyuz 20 docked with Salyut 4. And then in 1978 the Soviets started to launch unmanned Progress cargo freighters to orbital stations (Salyut 6 initially) on a regular basis.
Even the Chinese have beaten the US with the ability to perform automatic dockings when the unmanned Shenzhou 8 docked with Tiangong 1 in 2011.
So, let us see how the first US attempt to complete a fully-automatic docking works out with the DM 1 mission.
Post by: Scylla on 03/01/2019 06:12 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/aw6g7j/rspacex_cctcap_demo_mission_1_media_thread_videos/
Post by: Lar on 03/01/2019 06:21 pm
"my comments weren't aspersions, they were facts" would be a) false and b) arguing. Don't
Post by: Lar on 03/01/2019 06:25 pm
Something about this flight is not generating much interest. This will be the first attempt by an unmanned US spacecraft to be launched and then complete a full automatic docking with an already-orbiting spacecraft (ISS in this case).(fan) Why do you think that this flight isn't generating much interest? I might be missing out on who is and isn't interested but I see high interest. Could be wrong.
Post by: envy887 on 03/01/2019 06:39 pm
Something about this flight is not generating much interest. This will be the first attempt by an unmanned US spacecraft to be launched and then complete a full automatic docking with an already-orbiting spacecraft (ISS in this case).(fan) Why do you think that this flight isn't generating much interest? I might be missing out on who is and isn't interested but I see high interest. Could be wrong.
DM-1 is getting plenty of interest. The fact that it is the first US autodocking vehicle is not.
Post by: abaddon on 03/01/2019 07:20 pm
Isn't it also the first automated docking of any vehicle to the ISS not using Russian technology? IIRC HTV berths and ATV used the Russian system.Something about this flight is not generating much interest. This will be the first attempt by an unmanned US spacecraft to be launched and then complete a full automatic docking with an already-orbiting spacecraft (ISS in this case).(fan) Why do you think that this flight isn't generating much interest? I might be missing out on who is and isn't interested but I see high interest. Could be wrong.
DM-1 is getting plenty of interest. The fact that it is the first US autodocking vehicle is not.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/01/2019 08:10 pm
I'm going to guess 500 kg of propellant from insertion to reach ISS. I'm way off, I'm sure.]So, as linked in the update thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47095.msg1916430#msg1916430), we have our answer: Crew Dragon and cargo mass 26577 pounds (isn't that a very precise number) or 12055 kilograms / 12 metric tons. The cargo is 449.7 pounds (but does this include Ripley? Probably not). So we're looking at ~11.75 fueled for DM-1 Crew Dragon, sans cargo.
Per Stephen Clark's updates, that is the docking mass, not the launch mass. Dragon 2 doesn't shed any fairings between launch and docking, so except for some expended Draco RCS fuel I'm not sure what the difference would be.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/01/2019 08:39 pm
Might have something to do with not having a crew on board, the whole risk of life drama... Just my opinion...Something about this flight is not generating much interest. This will be the first attempt by an unmanned US spacecraft to be launched and then complete a full automatic docking with an already-orbiting spacecraft (ISS in this case).(fan) Why do you think that this flight isn't generating much interest? I might be missing out on who is and isn't interested but I see high interest. Could be wrong.
Post by: envy887 on 03/01/2019 09:40 pm
I'm going to guess 500 kg of propellant from insertion to reach ISS. I'm way off, I'm sure.]So, as linked in the update thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47095.msg1916430#msg1916430), we have our answer: Crew Dragon and cargo mass 26577 pounds (isn't that a very precise number) or 12055 kilograms / 12 metric tons. The cargo is 449.7 pounds (but does this include Ripley? Probably not). So we're looking at ~11.75 fueled for DM-1 Crew Dragon, sans cargo.
Per Stephen Clark's updates, that is the docking mass, not the launch mass. Dragon 2 doesn't shed any fairings between launch and docking, so except for some expended Draco RCS fuel I'm not sure what the difference would be.
- Ed Kyle
Probably not that far off. If the final mass at 410 km circular orbit is 12055 kg, and Draco specific impulse is 310 s, and Falcon drops Dragon off in a 250 km circular orbit and it does a 2-burn orbit raise, I get a initial mass in orbit of 12426 kg. So about 370 kg of fuel burn.
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 03/01/2019 09:50 pm
Isn't it also the first automated docking of any vehicle to the ISS not using Russian technology?
You may have the reason for the lack of interest in the docking there! Is it the first docking of any vehicle? No. The first automated docking? No. The first automated docking to the ISS? Still no. How about the first automated docking of any vehicle to the ISS not using Russian technology? YES!!! Hang out the bunting.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/01/2019 10:09 pm
Something about this flight is not generating much interest. This will be the first attempt by an unmanned US spacecraft to be launched and then complete a full automatic docking with an already-orbiting spacecraft (ISS in this case).
How much interest did Korabl-1, Mercury-BJ 1, Kosmos 47, Gemini 1, Kosmos 133, Apollo 201 and Shenzhou 1 (for Vostok, Mercury, Voskhod, Gemini, Soyuz, Apollo and Shenzhou) generate compared to their first crewed flights? Wait until the first crewed launch. That is going to be crazy!
Post by: Prettz on 03/01/2019 10:29 pm
Post by: Paul_G on 03/01/2019 10:58 pm
Would assume they want to confirm it works before starting the trip to the ISS. This is a new nose cone so never been tried before.
Is there an equivalent of the Cargo Dragkn star tracker under the nose cone? I seem to remember that the opening of the panel that reveals the grapple point on Cargo Dragon also exposes the star tracker for navigation?
Paul
Post by: ejb749 on 03/01/2019 11:16 pm
...now we know where Elon's watching the launch from
He'll probably move away from there before the launch. :)
Post by: MechE31 on 03/01/2019 11:29 pm
Would assume they want to confirm it works before starting the trip to the ISS. This is a new nose cone so never been tried before.
Is there an equivalent of the Cargo Dragkn star tracker under the nose cone? I seem to remember that the opening of the panel that reveals the grapple point on Cargo Dragon also exposes the star tracker for navigation?
Paul
Cargo dragon has the star tracker in the GNC bay.
Post by: Khadgars on 03/01/2019 11:43 pm
Post by: Phillip Clark on 03/01/2019 11:56 pm
Something about this flight is not generating much interest. This will be the first attempt by an unmanned US spacecraft to be launched and then complete a full automatic docking with an already-orbiting spacecraft (ISS in this case).(fan) Why do you think that this flight isn't generating much interest? I might be missing out on who is and isn't interested but I see high interest. Could be wrong.
I was meaning that an aspect of this flight is not generating any interest, not that the flight itself isn't generating interest.
Post by: docmordrid on 03/02/2019 12:34 am
Post by: PahTo on 03/02/2019 12:58 am
I'm still wondering about the config of the spacecraft...
Go DM1--deliver the goods!
(sorry to go all party thread, but this is a big deal)
Post by: AUricle on 03/02/2019 01:24 am
I'll guarantee you anyone who has followed the evolution of Falcon9/Dragon is as excited as I am about this mission. Yeah, it's (supposed to) happening very late for an old buzzard like me, (CST 1:49) but speaking for myself, I'm like a cat on a hot tin roof already...GO FALCON! GO DRAGON! GO SPACEX / NASA!! Oh almost forgot, GO RIPLEY!! ;DSomething about this flight is not generating much interest. This will be the first attempt by an unmanned US spacecraft to be launched and then complete a full automatic docking with an already-orbiting spacecraft (ISS in this case).(fan) Why do you think that this flight isn't generating much interest? I might be missing out on who is and isn't interested but I see high interest. Could be wrong.
Post by: vaporcobra on 03/02/2019 03:39 am
Here's another version of the audio without the extra commentary and radio music :)
http://issaudio.byethost7.com/iss/2019-03-01-Fri-0815_trim.mp3
Will try to summarize some of what was said. Fair warning that it is entirely ambiguous when the woman is speaking and when she is translating, so I have no idea what is coming from her and what is a translation.
Apparently, the main concern is once Crew Dragon is from 40-30m, "when we switch from 0.3 m/s to 0.8 m/s." "0.3 m/s is not very good for us; 0.8 m/s: we dock our vehicles at that so we are very familiar with that." If this was coming from Oleg, it sounded like it was something he was personally concerned about, whether or not the Russian ground segment agrees.
Edit: Just gonna strike the last paragraph off the record for now, this all makes very little logical sense.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/02/2019 05:53 am
[Note: Moved my post here when I realized I had responded to an Update thread post]Here's another version of the audio without the extra commentary and radio music :)
http://issaudio.byethost7.com/iss/2019-03-01-Fri-0815_trim.mp3
Will try to summarize some of what was said. Fair warning that it is entirely ambiguous when the woman is speaking and when she is translating, so I have no idea what is coming from her and what is a translation.
Apparently, the main concern is once Crew Dragon is from 40-30m, "when we switch from 0.3 m/s to 0.8 m/s." "0.3 m/s is not very good for us; 0.8 m/s: we dock our vehicles at that so we are very familiar with that." If this was coming from Oleg, it sounded like it was something he was personally concerned about, whether or not the Russian ground segment agrees.In other words, the hang-up is apparently a different and thus unfamiliar approach velocity outside 30m, with that velocity actually being ~2.7x slower than what is familiar. Oleg was audibly worried about the fact that "this 10-ton...huge thing is going to be running at us". Overall, very confusing, as a 2.7x slower approach would seem to give the crew... 2.7x more time to deal with any problems and/or abort the approach inside 30m.
Edit: Just gonna strike the last paragraph off the record for now, this all makes very little logical sense.
I don’t think you _ever_ hear the woman’s own words - meaning, like a translator for the deaf, she never says her own words. Pretty sure of that.
That being said, my take was she dropped a decimal place when she says “0.8”. So it was 0.3 m/s outside the box and 0.08 m/s inside the box. That would explain Oleg being concerned regarding ramming speed of 0.3 instead of the more leisurely 0.08.
Of course, probably wouldn’t take much effort to find what the Russian approach speed is by looking at the OSD found on docking videos...
Post by: Orbiter on 03/02/2019 05:56 am
Post by: trekkie604 on 03/02/2019 06:02 am
Post by: DwightM on 03/02/2019 06:05 am
NTV is ~20 sec delayed?Looks like it, the Florida Today link Steven provided seems to be more on target.
Post by: chewi on 03/02/2019 06:10 am
Post by: Comga on 03/02/2019 06:15 am
Musk invented the Falcon 1 because he couldn't afford a $20M Russian ICBM?
Musk's version was a much harsher with regards to the Russians.
Post by: EspenU on 03/02/2019 06:22 am
Post by: Jarnis on 03/02/2019 06:24 am
Post by: Lar on 03/02/2019 06:26 am
Bridenstine's version of the history of Musk and SpaceX is..... polished.polished... hmm ... I thought it was almost deliberately misleading. Disappointed.
Musk invented the Falcon 1 because he couldn't afford a $20M Russian ICBM?
Musk's version was a much harsher with regards to the Russians.
Post by: tyrred on 03/02/2019 06:29 am
Youtube having garbage bitrate for the stream. Ustream NASA TV mirror better quality, but 30s delayed.
I concur. Benjamin has been grousing about the youtube quality recently, likely he'll be grousing about it even more next Saturday on TMRO. Really too bad, youtube should have this type of thing on lockdown.
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/02/2019 06:30 am
Bridenstine's version of the history of Musk and SpaceX is..... polished.polished... hmm ... I thought it was almost deliberately misleading. Disappointed.
Musk invented the Falcon 1 because he couldn't afford a $20M Russian ICBM?
Musk's version was a much harsher with regards to the Russians.
But not unexpected. Bridenstine got to work with the Russians after all. No need to insult them while they have "problems".
Post by: Comga on 03/02/2019 06:31 am
Having seen it last night in the "Apollo 11" IMax documentary, it is quite the contrast with all the flat screen displays.
No more attached rotary phones or 8" monochrome monitors, or tractor feed plotters.
And people dressing a little more colorfully than white button shirts with black ties.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/02/2019 06:31 am
Post by: DwightM on 03/02/2019 06:32 am
So, what's that in the cabin with Starman-2? A plushie of some sort? Didn't Elon want him getting 'lonely up in space' or something?Think of it the same as the plush toys the Russians bring along on the Soyuz flights, a zero G indicator.
Post by: mlindner on 03/02/2019 06:34 am
SpaceX stream: Terrible bitrate that is hard to watch
NASA TV Youtube stream: Bad (but better) bitrate and but delayed by 30 seconds.
Ustream NASA TV stream: Mono audio with low bitrate instead of stereo but best video bitrate and an additional 10 seconds delayed (total 40 second delay)
Why can't NASA and SpaceX do a sane stream?
Post by: Comga on 03/02/2019 06:38 am
Youtube having garbage bitrate for the stream. Ustream NASA TV mirror better quality, but 30s delayed.
I concur. Benjamin has been grousing about the youtube quality recently, likely he'll be grousing about it even more next Saturday on TMRO. Really too bad, youtube should have this type of thing on lockdown.
My views are clear on SpaceX, Livestream, and SFN (Although the latter two are now paused.)
How are you determining the lag?
SpaceX.com is ahead of the others, and adding the countdown time to the time on the computer clock puts liftoff close to 2:49:.... (They just took off the countdown clock. Again)
edit: summing to 2:49:04
Post by: mlindner on 03/02/2019 06:40 am
Youtube having garbage bitrate for the stream. Ustream NASA TV mirror better quality, but 30s delayed.
I concur. Benjamin has been grousing about the youtube quality recently, likely he'll be grousing about it even more next Saturday on TMRO. Really too bad, youtube should have this type of thing on lockdown.
My views are clear on SpaceX, Livestream, and SFN (Although the latter two are now paused.)
How are you determining the lag?
SpaceX.com is ahead of the others, and adding the countdown time to the time on the computer clock puts liftoff close to 2:49:.... (They just took off the countdown clock. Again)
edit: summing to 2:49:04
There's no reason that SpaceX's Youtube stream should be worse than the NASA TV youtube stream though... It has even lower bitrate than NASA does.
Post by: tyrred on 03/02/2019 06:41 am
Youtube having garbage bitrate for the stream. Ustream NASA TV mirror better quality, but 30s delayed.
I concur. Benjamin has been grousing about the youtube quality recently, likely he'll be grousing about it even more next Saturday on TMRO. Really too bad, youtube should have this type of thing on lockdown.
My views are clear on SpaceX, Livestream, and SFN (Although the latter two are now paused.)
How are you determining the lag?
SpaceX.com is ahead of the others, and adding the countdown time to the time on the computer clock puts liftoff close to 2:49:.... (They just took off the countdown clock. Again)
edit: summing to 2:49:04
24 second lag between NASA TV and youtube stream, based on countdown clock.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/02/2019 06:45 am
Post by: Prettz on 03/02/2019 06:45 am
Post by: Norm38 on 03/02/2019 06:46 am
Post by: Prettz on 03/02/2019 06:47 am
That curved event list is a cool design. Not the most practical maybe, but it looks cool.Gonna have to disagree in the very strongest possible terms.
Post by: tyrred on 03/02/2019 06:48 am
It's an orbital display?That curved event list is a cool design. Not the most practical maybe, but it looks cool.Gonna have to disagree in the very strongest possible terms.
Post by: Prettz on 03/02/2019 06:50 am
No, it's just a very Silicon Valley type of idea. Zero functionality.It's an orbital display?That curved event list is a cool design. Not the most practical maybe, but it looks cool.Gonna have to disagree in the very strongest possible terms.
Post by: mlindner on 03/02/2019 06:54 am
No, it's just a very Silicon Valley type of idea. Zero functionality.It's an orbital display?That curved event list is a cool design. Not the most practical maybe, but it looks cool.Gonna have to disagree in the very strongest possible terms.
It's quite functional, by having a rotating display they can show more information in closer density than they could otherwise, especially over an hour stream. The previous display would not have worked. Not sure what your beef here is. What is not functional?
Post by: Prettz on 03/02/2019 06:57 am
It's one of the worst displays I've ever seen, and I see a lot of really bad ideas that hide information in web development, but we're getting off-topic.No, it's just a very Silicon Valley type of idea. Zero functionality.It's an orbital display?That curved event list is a cool design. Not the most practical maybe, but it looks cool.Gonna have to disagree in the very strongest possible terms.
It's quite functional, by having a rotating display they can show more information in closer density than they could otherwise, especially over an hour stream. The previous display would not have worked. Not sure what your beef here is. What is not functional?
Post by: webdan on 03/02/2019 06:57 am
Witnessed first stage cutoff and 2nd start up. No binoculars or camera but great view nonetheless.
Post by: tyrred on 03/02/2019 06:59 am
Post by: gongora on 03/02/2019 06:59 am
Post by: webdan on 03/02/2019 07:02 am
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/02/2019 07:03 am
Post by: hkultala on 03/02/2019 07:03 am
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
Post by: Prettz on 03/02/2019 07:04 am
Post by: Semmel on 03/02/2019 07:05 am
Also, I like the new timeline. Allows a much more readable spacing of events than a linear display.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/02/2019 07:05 am
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
A guess only but it's possible that they didn't want the spacecraft in close proximity to the plume of a boost-back burn.
Post by: DigitalMan on 03/02/2019 07:06 am
Post by: Comga on 03/02/2019 07:08 am
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
A guess only but it's possible that they didn't want the spacecraft in close proximity to the plume of a boost-back burn
Don't guess (edit: bad guess)
Read back through the thread
It has been asked and answered several times.
Post by: neoforce on 03/02/2019 07:09 am
But it looked like it didn’t start floating until separation? If so, why didn’t it start floating as soon as SECO?
Post by: lrk on 03/02/2019 07:09 am
Post by: DigitalMan on 03/02/2019 07:10 am
Post by: lrk on 03/02/2019 07:11 am
Broadcast of the view inside the cabin seemed to have some transmission issues. But it did look like the “zero gee indicator” earth plushie did start to float away after dragon separation.
But it looked like it didn’t start floating until separation? If so, why didn’t it start floating as soon as SECO?
Unless dragon starts to accelerate backwards there is nothing to make it float away from the seat. Presumably the (slight) jolt of separation helped push it away.
Post by: High Bay 4 on 03/02/2019 07:11 am
Post by: punder on 03/02/2019 07:12 am
Post by: ugordan on 03/02/2019 07:12 am
Why would SpaceX's connection to youtube servers be worse than in the past? Very inexplicable. I hope the footage gets re-uploaded later on in reasonable quality.
It's not SpaceX, it's Youtube. They changed something about live streaming for everyone a couple of months ago that it introduced these horrific compression artifacts at scene changes. SpaceX archived webcasts return to the full intended quality after a while.
Post by: lrk on 03/02/2019 07:13 am
I saw no lightning. It was exceptionally clear.
Then what was the flash at T-2:15 or so?
https://youtu.be/2ZL0tbOZYhE?t=3104
Post by: aviators99 on 03/02/2019 07:13 am
Was it just me, or was there lightning in the distance a couple of minutes before launch? Or was that something else?
Yes, there was lightning in the video. But when you consider how far away the camera was (and thus, how much it is zoomed), the lightning that was expected to be hundreds of miles away would be seen quite clearly in that video. But it was definitely lightning.
Post by: HVM on 03/02/2019 07:14 am
Was it just me, or was there lightning in the distance a couple of minutes before launch? Or was that something else?Yes with the close shot with Dragon, and after launch; in the first stages view of coast of Florida!
Post by: Tonioroffo on 03/02/2019 07:14 am
It's not SpaceX, it's Youtube. They changed something about live streaming for everyone a couple of months ago that it introduced these horrific compression artifacts at scene changes. SpaceX archived webcasts return to the full intended quality after a while.
I switched to the NASA youtube feed and it looked quite a bit better.
Post by: StevenV on 03/02/2019 07:15 am
It's not SpaceX, it's Youtube. They changed something about live streaming for everyone a couple of months ago that it introduced these horrific compression artifacts at scene changes. SpaceX archived webcasts return to the full intended quality after a while.
The SpaceX stream was also at 60 fps, which might have added to the bitrate problem some people had.
Post by: aviators99 on 03/02/2019 07:15 am
Why would SpaceX's connection to youtube servers be worse than in the past? Very inexplicable. I hope the footage gets re-uploaded later on in reasonable quality.
It's not SpaceX, it's Youtube. They changed something about live streaming for everyone a couple of months ago that it introduced these horrific compression artifacts at scene changes. SpaceX archived webcasts return to the full intended quality after a while.
NASA TV had the same exact feed, but much clearer. Unfortunately, they were about 40 seconds behind.
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 03/02/2019 07:16 am
Still a ways to go but great job so far NASA & SpaceX.
Post by: Tonioroffo on 03/02/2019 07:16 am
Was it just me, or was there lightning in the distance a couple of minutes before launch? Or was that something else?Yes both with the close shot with Dragon, and the first stages view of coast of Florida!
Saw a few of those as well. Of course, these shots are done with long telelenses and cause depth compression - so the lightning might have been very far away.
Post by: DigitalMan on 03/02/2019 07:17 am
I don't have a decent camera so I wasn't able to capture pictures of the S2 jellyfish. Hopefully someone caught it.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/02/2019 07:17 am
Post by: tyrred on 03/02/2019 07:19 am
Why would SpaceX's connection to youtube servers be worse than in the past? Very inexplicable. I hope the footage gets re-uploaded later on in reasonable quality.
It's not SpaceX, it's Youtube. They changed something about live streaming for everyone a couple of months ago that it introduced these horrific compression artifacts at scene changes. SpaceX archived webcasts return to the full intended quality after a while.
I ended up switching to the SpaceX.com video feed, which was ultimately less choppy than any of the other feeds (on my computer, at least).
There has been some solar activity lately that may have played a role in the quality, as well. Space weather is a real thing.
NASA TV had the same exact feed, but much clearer. Unfortunately, they were about 40 seconds behind.
Post by: clongton on 03/02/2019 07:22 am
Post by: GregTheGrumpy on 03/02/2019 07:22 am
Post by: mikegi on 03/02/2019 07:23 am
Post by: glanmor05 on 03/02/2019 07:23 am
Post by: ugordan on 03/02/2019 07:26 am
Any word on the opening of the nose cone?
We'll probably have to wait until the post-launch press conference that's supposed to happen in about half an hour.
Post by: russianhalo117 on 03/02/2019 07:27 am
They are the modern Equivalent to Transatlantic Abort Sites.Launch Hazard Areas (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?hl=en&mid=17sTdDuaLN-EJeuALqkvhM2hULM5lvIKZ&ll=30.066028046624698%2C-79.54866692557653&z=7) for SpaceX Mission 1377 DM1 according NOTMAR message, valid for Saturday 02 Mar 07:40-08:20 UTC - alternate Tuesday 05 Mar 06:30-07:10 UTC.
Marked droneship landing for B1051.
Next two unusual Hazard Areas further in the flight path located east of Newfoundland island and west of Ireland.
Appropriate NOTAMs would be included later.
Could the the Hazard areas further down range relate to Launch abort scenarios further into flight but before orbital velocity? with potential splash down areas close to land for fast recovery?
Post by: DigitalMan on 03/02/2019 07:27 am
There was an isolated thunderstorm about 60 miles offshore.
There is a nice picture of it on reddit in the media post. It looks to me like it is in a location I have no visibility that low to the horizon.
Post by: Step55 on 03/02/2019 07:29 am
There was an isolated thunderstorm about 60 miles offshore.
There is a nice picture of it on reddit in the media post. It looks to me like it is in a location I have no visibility that low to the horizon.
Yes, the earth is not flat. 8)
Post by: HVM on 03/02/2019 07:39 am
https://imgur.com/gallery/spoZdEJ (https://imgur.com/gallery/spoZdEJ)There was an isolated thunderstorm about 60 miles offshore.
There is a nice picture of it on reddit in the media post. It looks to me like it is in a location I have no visibility that low to the horizon.
Post by: ugordan on 03/02/2019 07:42 am
Why would SpaceX's connection to youtube servers be worse than in the past? Very inexplicable. I hope the footage gets re-uploaded later on in reasonable quality.
It's not SpaceX, it's Youtube. They changed something about live streaming for everyone a couple of months ago that it introduced these horrific compression artifacts at scene changes. SpaceX archived webcasts return to the full intended quality after a while.
NASA TV had the same exact feed, but much clearer. Unfortunately, they were about 40 seconds behind.
Neither of those even remotely approached the video quality of previous live feeds. Look at this snippet NASA Kennedy uploaded from the exact same webcast. Just compare the detail on the water vapor clouds at the pad at T+12 seconds vs the live stream to see what I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBj2KsnAKb4
Post by: su27k on 03/02/2019 07:44 am
Post by: Wolfram66 on 03/02/2019 07:56 am
Any word on the opening of the nose cone?
We'll probably have to wait until the post-launch press conference that's supposed to happen in about half an hour.
According to SFN live feed nose cone has successfully opened
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/02/2019 08:03 am
Post by: darkenfast on 03/02/2019 08:04 am
Post by: mgreb on 03/02/2019 08:05 am
Post by: Star One on 03/02/2019 08:06 am
Unfortunately it also meant a clearly out of his depth presenter trying to question the whole topic of commercial spaceflight with an invited expert guest.
Post by: kevinof on 03/02/2019 08:06 am
There seemed to be quite a skid as the first stage's engine shut down during the landing on the drone-ship. It was a little hard to tell, given the quality of the signal from the barge during touch-down, but I "think" it was more centered than where it ended up.
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/02/2019 08:11 am
There seemed to be quite a skid as the first stage's engine shut down during the landing on the drone-ship. It was a little hard to tell, given the quality of the signal from the barge during touch-down, but I "think" it was more centered than where it ended up.
There is no skidding. As @Helodriver so elegantly put it. The core is just having a walkabout on the barge. ;D
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/02/2019 08:11 am
Post by: Star One on 03/02/2019 08:23 am
Post by: mlindner on 03/02/2019 08:41 am
Post by: kevinof on 03/02/2019 08:51 am
Elon is REALLY tired or something. He can't speak clearly today, even more than usual.
Post by: Mark McCombs on 03/02/2019 09:00 am
Looked shattered.Elon is REALLY tired or something. He can't speak clearly today, even more than usual.
Yeah, he's burnt. You get a lot a truth and genuine heart felt comments in that condition.
Post by: tyrred on 03/02/2019 09:21 am
I admit, I haven't actually listened to any of his statements before. Did not have an opinion on his position as NASA administrator. Until now.
Color me optimistic, but I found his closing statements at the post-launch presser absolutely inspirational.
Time to put the money where the mouth is.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/02/2019 09:58 am
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket? This is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit. Add that to the "reserving performance" thing and inevitably they have to land on the droneship.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/02/2019 10:02 am
Broadcast of the view inside the cabin seemed to have some transmission issues. But it did look like the “zero gee indicator” earth plushie did start to float away after dragon separation.
But it looked like it didn’t start floating until separation? If so, why didn’t it start floating as soon as SECO?
The reason it didn't move at all after SECO may well be just because it is a very smooth shutdown process so the cute plushie thingie didn't move too much.
Post by: catdlr on 03/02/2019 10:02 am
SpaceX Demo-1 Post-Launch News Conference
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6658
John44, glad to have you back on the forum with your High-Quality video captures. We missed you and understand what you went through. Tony.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/02/2019 10:04 am
I thought I heard the NASA PA person say the first operational crew would fly with two as yet unannounced international partner astronauts. Did I misunderstand??
Yup, it is a crew rotation mission so it will carry four astronauts but not all four will be american astronauts, at least three of them will be for the ISS USOS and the fourth will be a russian cosmonaut. This has been known for quite a while
Post by: dsmillman on 03/02/2019 10:11 am
Post by: vanoord on 03/02/2019 10:15 am
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket? This is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit. Add that to the "reserving performance" thing and inevitably they have to land on the droneship.
Is there not also a belief that the S1 trajectory was lower than usual, so any boostback burn would have to add height as well, increasing propellant requirements?
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/02/2019 10:30 am
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket? This is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit. Add that to the "reserving performance" thing and inevitably they have to land on the droneship.
Is there not also a belief that the S1 trajectory was lower than usual, so any boostback burn would have to add height as well, increasing propellant requirements?
It seems it might have been all a misunderstanding, it was actually a lofted trajectory and in some way even more lofted that some cargo missions. I don't understand very well how NASA would like such trajectory, if Falcon 9 has a bad day and the crew has to abort mid-flight, they will have quite a hard reentry with all the g-forces. Soyuz usually flies a flat trajectory, they usually take about the same time to get to a similar orbit as this Dragon has gone into but if you look back at their failiure in October the rocket was still about 50km up at about 2 minutes or so and the apogee after abort never went higher than 100km and the rocket was travelling almost horizontal from the external camera views (not exactly horizontal, but you know, something like 30º or something like that, maybe even less than that). If only this flight could have been in daylight to have some visual reference... but all we have is the telemetry from the webcast. Maybe we could even compare that with the "telemetry" from roscosmos coverage of the Soyuz launches but I'm not sure about how an abort would be better with a lofted trajectory...
Post by: ugordan on 03/02/2019 10:32 am
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/02/2019 10:37 am
See extract below from this article. Russians aren't competition but partners in regards to ISS. While Russia may lose some revenue from not flying NASA crew, they now get backup to Soyzu which is good for everybody. Recent incident with Soyzu proved how important it is to have backup crew vehicle. I think the new crew vehicles also offer orbit raising of ISS as bonus feature.I thought I heard the NASA PA person say the first operational crew would fly with two as yet unannounced international partner astronauts. Did I misunderstand??
Yup, it is a crew rotation mission so it will carry four astronauts but not all four will be american astronauts, at least three of them will be for the ISS USOS and the fourth will be a russian cosmonaut. This has been known for quite a while
https://www.space.com/spacex-launches-crew-dragon-test-flight.html
These private vehicles' operational debuts will end NASA's reliance on the Soyuz but not the agency's use of the Russian vehicle. At least for the near term, American astronauts will continue to fly on the Soyuz, and each contracted Crew Dragon and Starliner flight will include one cosmonaut, NASA officials said.
"The Russians have been really great partners," Cabana said. And, he added, "we want to have interoperability. We want to have redundancy, so if there's a problem with one vehicle, we can fly another."
Post by: JimO on 03/02/2019 11:39 am
Post by: JimO on 03/02/2019 11:40 am
Post by: dsmillman on 03/02/2019 12:44 pm
The reentry fireball ought to be visible pre-dawn from Central America, does anybody have an approximate track/schedule?At the post launch press conference someone said that landing will be on a descending node. So reentry will not be over Central America. The NASA TV schedule shows splashdown at 8:30 AM EST on March 8. So maybe the Pacific Northwest will see something.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/02/2019 01:44 pm
- When he went on about D2’s integrated launch abort system and then compared it to the older tractor system, which required a separate ejection system to get rid of it, and didn’t provide abort capabilities through all phases of flight - all the while sitting beside the Administrator who’s sole human capable launch vehicle uses that exact system.
- When he went in about all the ways D2’s could fail and how it stresses him out, while sitting beside the two humans who will be the first to fly the spacecraft.
- When he made Bridenstine squirm when he underscored the face that humans really needed a permanent base on the moon and Mars. (Bridenstine, in his closing comments, worked to take emphasis off “permanent” and more on benefits of returning to the moon from an Earthly basis).
- When he talked over Bridenstine who was trying to take the last question and Bridenstine just held his hands up in a “or maybe were not done with that question “ kinda way.
Main takeaway - great conference, Bridenstine and Elon and the entire panel were great, and I’m excited as h*ll that this is all happening...
Post by: thomson on 03/02/2019 01:48 pm
Are the orbital parameters available anywhere? I'd like to observe it tonight and was wondering how far away from ISS the Dragon will be.
Post by: envy887 on 03/02/2019 02:09 pm
Anyone knows how to track SpX-DM1 or how to find out its current orbital parmeters? I'd like to try taking a photo of ISS with a Dragon chasing it up. My understanding is that Dragon should be on similar orbit: with the same inclination, right ascension of the ascending node, just slightly lower apogee and/or perigee to catch up with the ISS.
Are the orbital parameters available anywhere? I'd like to observe it tonight and was wondering how far away from ISS the Dragon will be.
Dragon is in plane with ISS and catching up from behind in a lower orbit with a higher rev rate. If you can see ISS, you should see Dragon chasing it along the same path a few minutes later.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/02/2019 02:25 pm
I agree with you Prettz. This trend toward blocking the view in launch webcasts (ULA did it with an ugly crawl) is beyond bad. I don't mind having a data display, but why not move it out of the video frame? It worked when they did the split screen when it didn't block the view, but when they showed a single frame it blocked important parts of the view, including the launcher, the exhaust plume, part of the Vacuum Merlin, and so on. I didn't like the previous SpaceX status bar, which covered the bottom 10% or so of the frame. Now they've replaced it with something 3-times taller. Who comes up with this stuff? Horrible.That curved event list is a cool design. Not the most practical maybe, but it looks cool.Gonna have to disagree in the very strongest possible terms.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: clongton on 03/02/2019 02:30 pm
I agree with you Prettz. This trend toward blocking the view in launch webcasts (ULA did it with an ugly crawl) is beyond bad. I don't mind having a data display, but why not move it out of the video frame? It worked when they did the split screen when it didn't block the view, but when they showed a single frame it blocked important parts of the view, including the launcher, the exhaust plume, part of the Vacuum Merlin, and so on. I didn't like the previous SpaceX status bar, which covered the bottom 10% or so of the frame. Now they've replaced it with something 3-times taller. Who comes up with this stuff? Horrible.That curved event list is a cool design. Not the most practical maybe, but it looks cool.Gonna have to disagree in the very strongest possible terms.
- Ed Kyle
Agree. I really don't like the new display. It's distracting and ugly.
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/02/2019 02:37 pm
Will Dragon2 take this long to reach the ISS when there are crew on board as well? If so, how do they “go to the toilet” during that roughly 24 hour period?
Post by: Comga on 03/02/2019 02:40 pm
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket? This is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit. Add that to the "reserving performance" thing and inevitably they have to land on the droneship.
Is there not also a belief that the S1 trajectory was lower than usual, so any boostback burn would have to add height as well, increasing propellant requirements?
It seems it might have been all a misunderstanding, it was actually a lofted trajectory and in some way even more lofted that some cargo missions. I don't understand very well how NASA would like such trajectory, if Falcon 9 has a bad day and the crew has to abort mid-flight, they will have quite a hard reentry with all the g-forces. Soyuz usually flies a flat trajectory, they usually take about the same time to get to a similar orbit as this Dragon has gone into but if you look back at their failure in October the rocket was still about 50km up at about 2 minutes or so and the apogee after abort never went higher than 100km and the rocket was travelling almost horizontal from the external camera views (not exactly horizontal, but you know, something like 30º or something like that, maybe even less than that). If only this flight could have been in daylight to have some visual reference... but all we have is the telemetry from the webcast. Maybe we could even compare that with the "telemetry" from Roscosmos coverage of the Soyuz launches but I'm not sure about how an abort would be better with a lofted trajectory...
This has been discussed MANY times up-thread.
I believe you have this backwards.
It is a flatter trajectory, the opposite of lofted
That makes it easier to understand why the ASDS is so far downrange.
You could look in the L2 Simulations thread and probably find just what you want or ask OneSpeed for a side-by-side.
Post by: Comga on 03/02/2019 02:43 pm
So stupid question.
Will Dragon2 take this long to reach the ISS when there are crew on board as well?
If so, how do they “go to the toilet” during that roughly 24 hour period?
Not a stupid question but one directly answered yesterday.
It will take less time for operational flights.
Sanitary needs have been discussed. This is not new and still an issue for even the shortest times to docking.
Post by: MattMason on 03/02/2019 02:43 pm
So stupid question.
Will Dragon2 take this long to reach the ISS when there are crew on board as well? If so, how do they “go to the toilet” during that roughly 24 hour period?
According to this Business Insider article, the Crew Dragon is equipped with a toilet and privacy curtain. Given its other posh comforts (for a spacecraft) this isn't surprising to me.
I'm not sure if KSC CC launches could adapt the "fast-track" 6 hour rendezvous method developed by Roscosmos for Soyuz. Doubt it because of the starting inclinations of KSC, while Balkanaur is almost already on that inclination.
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-crew-dragon-capsule-what-its-like-inside-2018-8
Post by: Comga on 03/02/2019 02:47 pm
So stupid question.
Will Dragon2 take this long to reach the ISS when there are crew on board as well? If so, how do they “go to the toilet” during that roughly 24 hour period?
According to this Business Insider article, the Crew Dragon is equipped with a toilet and privacy curtain. Given its other posh comforts (for a spacecraft) this isn't surprising to me.
I'm not sure if KSC CC launches could adapt the "fast-track" 6 hour rendezvous method developed by Roscosmos for Soyuz. Doubt it because of the starting inclinations of KSC, while Balkanaur is almost already on that inclination.
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-crew-dragon-capsule-what-its-like-inside-2018-8 (https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-crew-dragon-capsule-what-its-like-inside-2018-8)
No one is going behind a privacy curtain to use the toilet during long stretches before and during the launch, so that's not a total answer.
My understanding is that the fast (3 orbit?) rendezvous opportunities occur on three day cycles and require additional orbit adjustment by the ISS, so they are not preferable from a Station perspective.
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/02/2019 02:51 pm
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/02/2019 03:02 pm
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/02/2019 03:10 pm
I really wish at one of these many press conferences that someone asked if the D2’s will return to Earth with all of its unused hypergolic propellant onboard, or if it dumps it at some point.
Yes, because that touches on another question - often asked but still not 100% clarified in my mind - which is whether Dragon 2’s thrusters can still slow it down for a survivable landing if the parachutes fail.
The previous consensus seemed to be no, due to the software not being programmed for it or something along those lines, but if the fuel is retained then in theory the capability could potentially still be there?
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/02/2019 03:10 pm
https://m.gazeta.ru/amp/science/2019/03/02_a_12218617.shtml
Post by: lonestriker on 03/02/2019 03:14 pm
I really wish at one of these many press conferences that someone asked if the D2’s will return to Earth with all of its unused hypergolic propellant onboard, or if it dumps it at some point.
Being an (software) engineer, I would prefer to keep the super dracos as options all the way till landing. My bet would be that have the old propulsive landing routines buried in their emergency software decision tree as a last resort if the capsule is in free fall after a certain altitude (turned off once the vehicle is safed.) Complete conjecture on my part with no basis in known facts...
Post by: JimO on 03/02/2019 03:20 pm
Anyone knows how to track SpX-DM1 or how to find out its current orbital parmeters? I'd like to try taking a photo of ISS with a Dragon chasing it up. My understanding is that Dragon should be on similar orbit: with the same inclination, right ascension of the ascending node, just slightly lower apogee and/or perigee to catch up with the ISS.
Are the orbital parameters available anywhere? I'd like to observe it tonight and was wondering how far away from ISS the Dragon will be.
Dragon is in plane with ISS and catching up from behind in a lower orbit with a higher rev rate. If you can see ISS, you should see Dragon chasing it along the same path a few minutes later.
Actually, not exactly. You'll see its path displaced by the distance earth's rotation has carried you in the interval between passes. See http://www.jamesoberg.com/95sep-feelingorbmechanics.pdf
Post by: kevinof on 03/02/2019 03:36 pm
As much as many of us would love to see this come down on land, it ain't going to happen.
I really wish at one of these many press conferences that someone asked if the D2’s will return to Earth with all of its unused hypergolic propellant onboard, or if it dumps it at some point.
Being an (software) engineer, I would prefer to keep the super dracos as options all the way till landing. My bet would be that have the old propulsive landing routines buried in their emergency software decision tree as a last resort if the capsule is in free fall after a certain altitude (turned off once the vehicle is safed.) Complete conjecture on my part with no basis in known facts...
Post by: envy887 on 03/02/2019 03:42 pm
Anyone knows how to track SpX-DM1 or how to find out its current orbital parmeters? I'd like to try taking a photo of ISS with a Dragon chasing it up. My understanding is that Dragon should be on similar orbit: with the same inclination, right ascension of the ascending node, just slightly lower apogee and/or perigee to catch up with the ISS.
Are the orbital parameters available anywhere? I'd like to observe it tonight and was wondering how far away from ISS the Dragon will be.
Dragon is in plane with ISS and catching up from behind in a lower orbit with a higher rev rate. If you can see ISS, you should see Dragon chasing it along the same path a few minutes later.
Actually, not exactly. You'll see its path displaced by the distance earth's rotation has carried you in the interval between passes. See http://www.jamesoberg.com/95sep-feelingorbmechanics.pdf
Yes, I should say a similar path. Earth's rotation will carry it 20-30 or so km west or every minute it's lagging ISS.
TLEs are now out so that will make it easier to spot. From the update thread:
1 44063U 19011A 19061.53104934 -.19125596 12647+0 -26592-1 0 9999
2 44063 51.6390 171.6721 0109052 53.9126 60.6836 15.92094578 33
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/02/2019 04:05 pm
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket? This is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit. Add that to the "reserving performance" thing and inevitably they have to land on the droneship.
Is there not also a belief that the S1 trajectory was lower than usual, so any boostback burn would have to add height as well, increasing propellant requirements?
It seems it might have been all a misunderstanding, it was actually a lofted trajectory and in some way even more lofted that some cargo missions. I don't understand very well how NASA would like such trajectory, if Falcon 9 has a bad day and the crew has to abort mid-flight, they will have quite a hard reentry with all the g-forces. Soyuz usually flies a flat trajectory, they usually take about the same time to get to a similar orbit as this Dragon has gone into but if you look back at their failure in October the rocket was still about 50km up at about 2 minutes or so and the apogee after abort never went higher than 100km and the rocket was travelling almost horizontal from the external camera views (not exactly horizontal, but you know, something like 30º or something like that, maybe even less than that). If only this flight could have been in daylight to have some visual reference... but all we have is the telemetry from the webcast. Maybe we could even compare that with the "telemetry" from Roscosmos coverage of the Soyuz launches but I'm not sure about how an abort would be better with a lofted trajectory...
This has been discussed MANY times up-thread.
I believe you have this backwards.
It is a flatter trajectory, the opposite of lofted
That makes it easier to understand why the ASDS is so far downrange.
You could look in the L2 Simulations thread and probably find just what you want or ask OneSpeed for a side-by-side.
Dude, relax for a sec. My comment was not based on what we thought previously but rather about we have seen on the webcast. Just read the numbers on the webcast then come here to rant about my comment and say I'm wrong just because you didn't even compare numbers.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/02/2019 04:06 pm
So stupid question.
Will Dragon2 take this long to reach the ISS when there are crew on board as well? If so, how do they “go to the toilet” during that roughly 24 hour period?
If they decide to do it in 24h, they will have more opportunities. For a 6h rendezvous they may have just two or three days a month to do it and for a faster one obviously a less frequency. 24h sounds right for me, it gives you time to take a rest inside Dragon before docking with the ISS. Also the capsule has a toilet, no need to worry about that.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/02/2019 04:08 pm
So stupid question.
Will Dragon2 take this long to reach the ISS when there are crew on board as well? If so, how do they “go to the toilet” during that roughly 24 hour period?
According to this Business Insider article, the Crew Dragon is equipped with a toilet and privacy curtain. Given its other posh comforts (for a spacecraft) this isn't surprising to me.
I'm not sure if KSC CC launches could adapt the "fast-track" 6 hour rendezvous method developed by Roscosmos for Soyuz. Doubt it because of the starting inclinations of KSC, while Balkanaur is almost already on that inclination.
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-crew-dragon-capsule-what-its-like-inside-2018-8
Inclination is not a real problem unless the launch site is at a higher latitude than 51.66º
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/02/2019 04:09 pm
I don’t know about that - depends on what you had for breakfast...So stupid question.
Will Dragon2 take this long to reach the ISS when there are crew on board as well? If so, how do they “go to the toilet” during that roughly 24 hour period?
If they decide to do it in 24h, they will have more opportunities. For a 6h rendezvous they may have just two or three days a month to do it and for a faster one obviously a less frequency. 24h sounds right for me, it gives you time to take a rest inside Dragon before docking with the ISS. Also the capsule has a toilet, no need to worry about that.
Apollo 8
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/02/2019 04:10 pm
I never noticed up until now that one section of a pipe on an MVac gets red hot during operation. I went back to the Nusantara Satu webcast and it was there as well, it appeared to be a duller red glow, but maybe it's down to the the camera auto exposure.
I saw that too, was sort of scary looking while I was only half awake. Looking at it today on replays, I think it was a kink in the foil at the base of the MVac reflecting the glow of the nozzle. Would like to know for sure.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/02/2019 04:10 pm
I don’t know about that - depends on what you had for breakfast...So stupid question.
Will Dragon2 take this long to reach the ISS when there are crew on board as well? If so, how do they “go to the toilet” during that roughly 24 hour period?
If they decide to do it in 24h, they will have more opportunities. For a 6h rendezvous they may have just two or three days a month to do it and for a faster one obviously a less frequency. 24h sounds right for me, it gives you time to take a rest inside Dragon before docking with the ISS. Also the capsule has a toilet, no need to worry about that.
Apollo 8
Ok... just consider a norminal situation ;D
Post by: testguy on 03/02/2019 04:21 pm
Post by: Jcc on 03/02/2019 04:22 pm
I don’t know about that - depends on what you had for breakfast...So stupid question.
Will Dragon2 take this long to reach the ISS when there are crew on board as well? If so, how do they “go to the toilet” during that roughly 24 hour period?
If they decide to do it in 24h, they will have more opportunities. For a 6h rendezvous they may have just two or three days a month to do it and for a faster one obviously a less frequency. 24h sounds right for me, it gives you time to take a rest inside Dragon before docking with the ISS. Also the capsule has a toilet, no need to worry about that.
Apollo 8
Or, just "Depends" https://www.depend.com/en-us/
Post by: Rondaz on 03/02/2019 04:31 pm
Anna Heiney Posted on March 2, 2019
The Demo-1 uncrewed flight test to the International Space Station, SpaceX’s inaugural flight with NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, is underway following the successful launch Saturday morning of the company’s Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon spacecraft. The first-of-its-kind mission, planned to be a full demonstration of the spacecraft and its systems, launched on time at 2:49 a.m. EST from Launch Complex 39A at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Demo-1 is the first flight test of a space system designed for humans built and operated by a commercial company through a public-private partnership. The mission also marks a significant step toward returning to the nation the capability to launch astronauts on a U.S.-built spacecraft from U.S. soil.
“It’s an exciting evening,” NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said after the launch. “What today really represents is a new era in spaceflight. We’re looking forward to being one of many customers in a robust commercial marketplace in low-Earth orbit.”
Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO and lead designer, expressed his thanks to the SpaceX team and reported that the Crew Dragon spacecraft performed as expected through launch and ascent.
“We’re only partway through the mission, but the system thus far has passed an exhaustive set of reviews, and the launch itself,” Musk said. “The launch went as expected and so far everything is nominal.”
In addition to 400 pounds of supplies and equipment, Crew Dragon is carrying Ripley, an anthropomorphic test device outfitted with sensors to gather important data about what an astronaut flying aboard the spacecraft would experience throughout the mission.
NASA and SpaceX will use data from Demo-1 to further prepare for Demo-2, the crewed flight test that will carry NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley to the International Space Station. NASA will validate the performance of SpaceX’s systems before putting crew on board for the Demo-2 flight, currently targeted for July.
Crew Dragon will carry out a series of phasing maneuvers as it pursues the space station during approach. The spacecraft is scheduled to autonomously dock to the station’s Harmony module forward port tomorrow, March 3, at about 6 a.m. EST. It will remain docked until approximately 2:30 a.m. on Friday, March 8. Crew Dragon is expected to return to Earth with a splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean at approximately 8:45 a.m. on Friday, March 8, a little more than six hours after departing the space station.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/03/02/demo-1-launch-ushers-in-new-era-in-spaceflight/
Post by: Comga on 03/02/2019 04:45 pm
I wasn't sure where to post this comment but I guess here is as good as any. The interior of the Dragon 2 capsule as you would expect from Musk: is clean, smooth lines, uncluttered, minimalistic yet functional. It appears to have been designed by an auto designer Ha Ha. On the other hand the interior of the ISS is just the opposite and looks like a science experiment, because IT IS a science experiment. That being said I would expect to see the same interior design philosophy of the Dragon 2 being carried over to the Starship. I can't wait to see the first real renderings or hardware in place for the Starship interior. That shouldn't be too much longer.
Spot on
I saw the Apollo 11 documentary (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47285.msg1905430#msg1905430) the day before the DM-1 launch.
There are images of both capsule and launch control facility in both videos. (It's the same control room!)
Not that either are capable as those for Apollo, (You know what I mean.) there is a stark contrast for both.
Classic 1960's technology and utilitarianism for Apollo 11.
21st century technology and Musk's particular aesthetic for DM-1.
Both are perfect for what they are.
Post by: Comga on 03/02/2019 04:50 pm
Not sure Dragon even has a radar altimeter - doubt it could accurately determine it's height above ground in order to control the thrusters.I really wish at one of these many press conferences that someone asked if the D2’s will return to Earth with all of its unused hypergolic propellant onboard, or if it dumps it at some point.
Being an (software) engineer, I would prefer to keep the super dracos as options all the way till landing. My bet would be that have the old propulsive landing routines buried in their emergency software decision tree as a last resort if the capsule is in free fall after a certain altitude (turned off once the vehicle is safed.) Complete conjecture on my part with no basis in known facts...
As much as many of us would love to see this come down on land, it ain't going to happen.
My emphasis
That brings up an interesting question
How could Dragon determine its altitude with precision?
I had an idea and then I saw this object at the top of the window beside the hatch.
Any idea what it could be?
A downward facing camera?
A stereo camera?
A lidar?
A radar?
Post by: JimO on 03/02/2019 05:23 pm
Post by: daveklingler on 03/02/2019 05:31 pm
Not sure Dragon even has a radar altimeter - doubt it could accurately determine it's height above ground in order to control the thrusters.I really wish at one of these many press conferences that someone asked if the D2’s will return to Earth with all of its unused hypergolic propellant onboard, or if it dumps it at some point.
Being an (software) engineer, I would prefer to keep the super dracos as options all the way till landing. My bet would be that have the old propulsive landing routines buried in their emergency software decision tree as a last resort if the capsule is in free fall after a certain altitude (turned off once the vehicle is safed.) Complete conjecture on my part with no basis in known facts...
As much as many of us would love to see this come down on land, it ain't going to happen.
My emphasis
That brings up an interesting question
How could Dragon determine its altitude with precision?
I had an idea and then I saw this object at the top of the window beside the hatch.
Any idea what it could be?
A downward facing camera?
A stereo camera?
A lidar?
A radar?
It looks an awful lot like a window latch, but I'd give it better odds of being a camera. And if it were my choice, I'd mount it looking straight out the window, to show what it's like to look straight out the window.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/02/2019 05:33 pm
I set an alarm and woke up at 1:15 AM CST to watch. For everyone complaining about the stream video quality, I gotta wonder about your ISPs more than Youtube or SpaceX. I have fiber-to-the-home internet (3 years now) and a gigabit connection. Didn't have a single quality issue at all from the time I started watching at about T-minus 30 minutes all the way through Dragon sep. I wasn't switching between streams to compare to NASA's, but SpaceX's was fine.
As for the new curved mission timeline, I think it's great. Keeps the relevant place to look at a constant location all the way through, which is ideal for a quick-glance grasp of information. Ever wonder why your GPS map display in your car or a pilot's FMS system maps keep your position in the center and scroll as you move? That's why. Finding a location along a static plane or even a line takes more time and concentration that keeping the focus-point fixed and scrolling information around that point.
I didn't stay up post-sep for the presser, though I watched it later this morning. Elon looks EXHAUSTED. The man needs to delegate a bit more and get some sleep. He's gonna have a stroke or heart attack; that won't do anyone any good. Bridenstine impressed me. When nominated, I expected him to be a typical Administration Party apparatchik. He comes across as quite a bit less of that, and quite a bit more capable and willing to learn. So good on him.
Now let's see how rendezvous, prox ops and docking go tomorrow, and then EDL 5 days later before we call it all an unqualified success. But DM-1 is off to a great start, and that's encouraging on many fronts.
Post by: ppb on 03/02/2019 05:33 pm
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
A guess only but it's possible that they didn't want the spacecraft in close proximity to the plume of a boost-back burn
Don't guess (edit: bad guess)
Read back through the thread
It has been asked and answered several times.
This trend started a long time ago on TV, it was football broadcasts where I first noticed, to my great annoyance, that the networks insisted on plastering their logo along with the score on the screen. I felt like someone had slapped a sticker over my screen that I couldn't peel off. The trend has only grown worse over time to the present age of the internet, where online viewing of many websites is near impossible because of pop-ups. The Masters of Communication will keep messing with our viewing experience as long as we keep watching.I agree with you Prettz. This trend toward blocking the view in launch webcasts (ULA did it with an ugly crawl) is beyond bad. I don't mind having a data display, but why not move it out of the video frame? It worked when they did the split screen when it didn't block the view, but when they showed a single frame it blocked important parts of the view, including the launcher, the exhaust plume, part of the Vacuum Merlin, and so on. I didn't like the previous SpaceX status bar, which covered the bottom 10% or so of the frame. Now they've replaced it with something 3-times taller. Who comes up with this stuff? Horrible.That curved event list is a cool design. Not the most practical maybe, but it looks cool.Gonna have to disagree in the very strongest possible terms.
- Ed Kyle
Agree. I really don't like the new display. It's distracting and ugly.
( mods: sorry about the rant, but this was a long winded way of saying I'm also bothered by showing us anything else beyond elapsed time and maybe altitude and speed on the launch video feed)
Post by: kevinof on 03/02/2019 06:01 pm
Post by: Rondaz on 03/02/2019 08:01 pm
https://i.redd.it/ed7dayyjxqj21.jpg
Post by: Roy_H on 03/02/2019 08:58 pm
SpaceX Demo-1 Post-Launch News Conference
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6658
Thankyou for posting this as I did not stay up to watch it live. However I am generally disappointed on the low quality questions in these briefing. More than 75% are Elon, how do you feel about.... all general emotional questions. I want to see answers to technical questions, the best one was about the grid hydraulic pump failure. If I was able to ask a question I would like to know why SpaceX takes 27 hours to rendezvous with the ISS and the Russians take only 4 hours.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/02/2019 09:27 pm
SpaceX Demo-1 Post-Launch News Conference
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6658
Thankyou for posting this as I did not stay up to watch it live. However I am generally disappointed on the low quality questions in these briefing. More than 75% are Elon, how do you feel about.... all general emotional questions. I want to see answers to technical questions, the best one was about the grid hydraulic pump failure. If I was able to ask a question I would like to know why SpaceX takes 27 hours to rendezvous with the ISS and the Russians take only 4 hours.
Agreed about the questions. EverydayAstronaut really offset it with the hydraulic pump, though, made my day. And Elon turned a few of the more boring questions around by talking about specifics of the mission and the risks.
I can answer your question about the quick rendezvous.
To rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft - such as the station - you need to wait until the earth is turning so your launch-pad is exactly aligned with the orbital plane - while the earth constantly rotates. This means, unless you are capable of doing very expensive high deltaV plane-change manouvers, you end up with an instantaneous launch window.
Now the problem is, that you end up in that exact perfect spot only once every 24 hours, as the earth rotates. But in order to have a "short rendezvous" trajectory, where you basically just launch and are already on approach, you also need to launch just as the spacecraft you want to meet is passing overhead. Usually it does that every 90 minutes, give or take, since that's the orbital period for everything in low earth orbit.
Now there you have the problem. These two events need to coincide. The vehicle/station needs to pass overhead exactly over your launch location in order for you to make a quick rendezvous. And that doesn't happen often. Usable close pairings happen only about once a month. And even then, it often requires orbit-changes or adjustments of the station itself to make it match perfectly.
If you want to launch on any other day (for example because you had to scrub doe to weather, or because the schedule up on the station doesn't allow a dock on that particular day) you end up being a quarter orbit or half an orbit phase-shifted.
And that means you need to slowly "phase". Usually. as is the case with dragon, you are "behind" the target object, so you go into a lower orbit with a shorter orbital period, so you slowly "catch up" with the station over the course of quite a number of orbits.
The closer you get, the higher you raise your orbit, until you have the station in sight and are practically in the same orbit and can start relative motion maneuvers for a docking or capture approach.
That's the normal procedure, and thats usually done for cargo or unmanned vehicles, because its just a lot less hazzle. You can launch on any day instead of just once a month, and you don't have to fiddle with the stations thrusters for orbit fine-tuning, only with the approaching vehicle.
Now for Dragon2 DM1 in particular, its a test flight. So the operators WANT lots of time to check out the vehicle, test all systems in orbit and make sure everything is working correctly before going anywhere near the station. So not only does it not need a quick rendezvous plan, it actually benefits from a nice slow and steady approach, so you can make sure everything is safe, since its a test flight.
Once Dragon2 is operational and doing crew flights, we might start seeing quick rendezvous approaches from SpaceX too, if NASA, their customer, is interested in that. It's really not a difficult thing for the launch vehicle and more a question of meticulous mission planning to shave a few hours of orbital travel time. It's really a question of priorities. Is it necessary to get the astronauts to station in the shortest time? Or is there more use in having additional time for acclimatization and getting used to zero G, (and having more schedule freedom for when to launch)
Post by: refsmmat on 03/02/2019 09:50 pm
So can anybody work out the preliminary entry ground track next week? Because it's going to be nighttime and [if descending node] will cross populated areas of North America. The much bigger shuttles made SPECTACULAR entry fireballs across the US [I saw four or five, and even when it was forty mile up we could hear the MUCH later sonic boom ['thud' would better describe it]. And numerous witnesses reported the 'electrophonic sound' phenomenon caused by radio bursts from the plasma tail exciting materials in the earwitness vicinity, the old real-time audio bolide effect that baffled scientists for centuries. http://www.jamesoberg.com/96mar-sts72_entry.pdf
It could be interesting viewing near a line that passes through Kansas City and Huntsville. The Sun will probably be up, but that doesn't mean don't look... it means we don't know.
Post by: JimO on 03/02/2019 10:10 pm
….. If I was able to ask a question I would like to know why SpaceX takes 27 hours to rendezvous with the ISS and the Russians take only 4 hours.
As CorvusCorax said.....
The quicker rendezvous isn't a matter of vehicle speed, it's a matter of target position along its orbit.
The dominant factor in a launch window is the plane of the target's orbit. You gotta go when you're able to go into that plane.
When you get into orbit, the next question is how far ahead of you is the target? It could randomly be anywhere, from overhead to the far side of Earth to coming up behind you.
You catch up orbit by orbit by staying lower and faster -- say, with station at 240 miles and chaser at 140, you catch up about 1,000 miles per orbit. [10 X delta-H per 90-minute rev]
But the length of the full orbit is about 25,000 miles, so the target's lead over the chaser can be somewhere between zero and that number. Whatever it is, you have to catch up and then rise to a higher docking orbit where the catch-up rate is a lot slower.
The rapid rendezvous requires the target to literally fly into the hunter's gunsight, and happen to be in a very narrow range interval just ahead of the chaser at launch. That requires active thrusting by the station in the days before launch. This is complex, fuel costly, and brittle in that after several launch days are missed, the target can drift forward or back and go beyond the narrow permissable 'lead' range. And it has to be adjusted again.
For the first launch of a new vehicle, taking the trouble [and paying the cost] to set up the only-temporary rapid rendezvous mutual alignment -- with the odds of launch scrubs -- probably isn't very attractive.
Post by: jak Kennedy on 03/02/2019 11:05 pm
Not sure what to make of that. Any thoughts or did I just read his reply incorrectly?
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/02/2019 11:11 pm
Something strange that Elon said in the post conference, to I believe his second question, while talking about Dragon 2 he said “Hardly a part in common with Dragon 1 which in retrospect will probably change”
Not sure what to make of that. Any thoughts or did I just read his reply incorrectly?
Since Dragon2 is unlikely to change much given the strict certification process involved I assumed that meant that Dragon1 would be updated to have more commonality with Dragon2.
Post by: groundbound on 03/02/2019 11:16 pm
Something strange that Elon said in the post conference, to I believe his second question, while talking about Dragon 2 he said “Hardly a part in common with Dragon 1 which in retrospect will probably change”
Not sure what to make of that. Any thoughts or did I just read his reply incorrectly?
Since Dragon2 is unlikely to change much given the strict certification process involved I assumed that meant that Dragon1 would be updated to have more commonality with Dragon2.
Isn't Dragon 1 in the process of being phased out?
Post by: envy887 on 03/02/2019 11:39 pm
Something strange that Elon said in the post conference, to I believe his second question, while talking about Dragon 2 he said “Hardly a part in common with Dragon 1 which in retrospect will probably change”
Not sure what to make of that. Any thoughts or did I just read his reply incorrectly?
Since Dragon2 is unlikely to change much given the strict certification process involved I assumed that meant that Dragon1 would be updated to have more commonality with Dragon2.
Isn't Dragon 1 in the process of being phased out?
Maybe they are going to use some Dragon 2 parts on upcoming Dragon 1 cargo flights.
Post by: cppetrie on 03/02/2019 11:39 pm
Post by: deruch on 03/02/2019 11:41 pm
Broadcast of the view inside the cabin seemed to have some transmission issues. But it did look like the “zero gee indicator” earth plushie did start to float away after dragon separation.Even after the MVac shuts down, there is still some minor residual thrusting due to, I believe, minor ACS thrusting or LOX venting. Maybe this allows them to prevent sloshing of residual propellants affecting the stack attitude? Then once that ends, a brief period of quiescence is soon followed by Dragon separation. The separation event includes some sort of spring or minor pushing mechanism which would also act to settle/re-settle the zero-G plushy. Result being that, with the limited video/transmission capabilities shown during the webcast, it appears like the indicator only starts to float after separation.
But it looked like it didn’t start floating until separation? If so, why didn’t it start floating as soon as SECO?
Post by: deruch on 03/02/2019 11:53 pm
Minor correction, this alignment of ISS/target and launch site actually happens twice every 24 hours. On both the ascending and descending tracks. But due to the nature of range/launch safety constraints and the allowable launch azimuths from a given launch site, you may end up being limited to only one of those in practice. For launches from KSC/CCAFS to the ISS, SpaceX and others are limited to only launching into the ascending track (northeast). Launching into the descending track (southeast) would result in overflying landmasses/populations which would violate the allowed safety limits.Thankyou for posting this as I did not stay up to watch it live. However I am generally disappointed on the low quality questions in these briefing. More than 75% are Elon, how do you feel about.... all general emotional questions. I want to see answers to technical questions, the best one was about the grid hydraulic pump failure. If I was able to ask a question I would like to know why SpaceX takes 27 hours to rendezvous with the ISS and the Russians take only 4 hours.To rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft - such as the station - you need to wait until the earth is turning so your launch-pad is exactly aligned with the orbital plane - while the earth constantly rotates. This means, unless you are capable of doing very expensive high deltaV plane-change manouvers, you end up with an instantaneous launch window.
Now the problem is, that you end up in that exact perfect spot only once every 24 hours, as the earth rotates....
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 12:03 am
Post by: Nomadd on 03/03/2019 12:07 am
Really, really minor correction...Once or twice every 23 hours 56 minutes.Minor correction, this alignment of ISS/target and launch site actually happens twice every 24 hours. On both the ascending and descending tracks. But due to the nature of range/launch safety constraints and the allowable launch azimuths from a given launch site, you may end up being limited to only one of those in practice. For launches from KSC/CCAFS to the ISS, SpaceX and others are limited to only launching into the ascending track (northeast). Launching into the descending track (southeast) would result in overflying landmasses/populations which would violate the allowed safety limits.Thankyou for posting this as I did not stay up to watch it live. However I am generally disappointed on the low quality questions in these briefing. More than 75% are Elon, how do you feel about.... all general emotional questions. I want to see answers to technical questions, the best one was about the grid hydraulic pump failure. If I was able to ask a question I would like to know why SpaceX takes 27 hours to rendezvous with the ISS and the Russians take only 4 hours.To rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft - such as the station - you need to wait until the earth is turning so your launch-pad is exactly aligned with the orbital plane - while the earth constantly rotates. This means, unless you are capable of doing very expensive high deltaV plane-change manouvers, you end up with an instantaneous launch window.
Now the problem is, that you end up in that exact perfect spot only once every 24 hours, as the earth rotates....
Post by: russianhalo117 on 03/03/2019 12:19 am
https://twitter.com/jaredhead/status/1101766548727844864The nosecone uses the NDS docking mechanism to secure it in place for launch and landing so the NDS gets a partial checkout after launch.QuoteAnd SpaceX has said the nose cone on Dragon has opened. Woohoo! Now comes the real test: getting to @Space_Station, especially docking.
Post by: russianhalo117 on 03/03/2019 12:20 am
No lighting inside trunk? Pretty sure cargo dragon has lights there so that you can see separation clearly even in the dark.There is lighting but it is not turned on during that phase of flight.
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 12:21 am
Interesting headline on Gazeta.RU: Roscosmos didn't congratulate NASA and Musk for today's successful flight:
https://m.gazeta.ru/amp/science/2019/03/02_a_12218617.shtml
Desktop version: https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2019/03/02_a_12218617.shtml
If this is actually true then that really makes things quite sour. NASA didn't criticize Roscosmos over their repeated incidents such as drilling holes in their own spacecraft nor nearly killing one of their astronauts. It seems Roscosmos is getting more and more partisan.
Post by: Ancient on 03/03/2019 01:54 am
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 01:59 am
Anyone know if there is going to be a webcast for docking?Yes...
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/schedule.html
Post by: ThomasGadd on 03/03/2019 02:12 am
Something strange that Elon said in the post conference, to I believe his second question, while talking about Dragon 2 he said “Hardly a part in common with Dragon 1 which in retrospect will probably change”
Not sure what to make of that. Any thoughts or did I just read his reply incorrectly?
Since Dragon2 is unlikely to change much given the strict certification process involved I assumed that meant that Dragon1 would be updated to have more commonality with Dragon2.
Isn't Dragon 1 in the process of being phased out?
Maybe they are going to use some Dragon 2 parts on upcoming Dragon 1 cargo flights.
Since NASA wants new Dragon 2's for crewed flights. Spacex will refurbish flown ones for cargo.
I suspect after some flight time on the Dragon 2 NASA will certify them like used F9's.
Post by: Jorge on 03/03/2019 02:23 am
Really, really minor correction...Once or twice every 23 hours 56 minutes.Minor correction, this alignment of ISS/target and launch site actually happens twice every 24 hours. On both the ascending and descending tracks. But due to the nature of range/launch safety constraints and the allowable launch azimuths from a given launch site, you may end up being limited to only one of those in practice. For launches from KSC/CCAFS to the ISS, SpaceX and others are limited to only launching into the ascending track (northeast). Launching into the descending track (southeast) would result in overflying landmasses/populations which would violate the allowed safety limits.Thankyou for posting this as I did not stay up to watch it live. However I am generally disappointed on the low quality questions in these briefing. More than 75% are Elon, how do you feel about.... all general emotional questions. I want to see answers to technical questions, the best one was about the grid hydraulic pump failure. If I was able to ask a question I would like to know why SpaceX takes 27 hours to rendezvous with the ISS and the Russians take only 4 hours.To rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft - such as the station - you need to wait until the earth is turning so your launch-pad is exactly aligned with the orbital plane - while the earth constantly rotates. This means, unless you are capable of doing very expensive high deltaV plane-change manouvers, you end up with an instantaneous launch window.
Now the problem is, that you end up in that exact perfect spot only once every 24 hours, as the earth rotates....
Equally minor correction... more like 23 hours 36-ish minutes. Four minutes earlier per day due to the difference between the sidereal and solar day, 20-ish more minutes due to the westward regression of the ISS orbit ascending node caused by the Earth's equatorial bulge. It's "20-ish" because it's a function of altitude and inclination. ISS inclination doesn't vary much but altitude can.
The previous answers to this question are accurate as far as they go, but they're missing something. I'm just going to throw this out there, from NASA's NTRS (note, per the revision log on page 2, that this document is no longer export controlled):
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170001943.pdf
Further hint: paragraph 3.4.2.1. Have fun.
/lurk
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/03/2019 03:51 am
Post by: Jorge on 03/03/2019 04:20 am
I've been wondering - will astronauts be allowed to enter Crew Dragon (possibly yes), for how long and will it be shown on NASA TV?
They pretty much have to, in order to extract the 181 kg of equipment and supplies, and put in the science samples and failed spacesuit.
March 3, Sunday:
- 08:30 UTC NASA TV Coverage of the Rendezvous and Docking of the SpaceX/Crew Dragon Spacecraft to the ISS
- 11.00 UTC Dragon SpX-DM-1 Docking
- 13:30 UTC NASA TV Coverage of the Hatch Opening of the SpaceX/Crew Dragon Spacecraft
- 13.45 UTC hatch opening by flight engineer Anne McClain and commander Oleg Kononenko.
DM-1 will deliver 181 kg of equipment and supplies for the station's crew and return with science samples, as well as a failed part of a spacesuit for analysis and repair
- 15:35 UTC NASA TV Coverage of the SpaceX/Crew Dragon special welcoming ceremony by the ISS crew.
Post by: MKremer on 03/03/2019 04:30 am
I've been wondering - will astronauts be allowed to enter Crew Dragon (possibly yes), for how long and will it be shown on NASA TV?Hatch opening should be live. And, yes, they'll have to enter inside since there is some 200kg or so of cargo to be unloaded and some to be loaded for return.
I would guess that they will go through the same kind of air sampling with masks and eye protection, like the first visits of the other cargo craft that have berthed and docked to the station.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/03/2019 05:42 am
Quote
The Shelton family of Dallas was known for the tradition of sending flowers to @NASA_Johnson for Shuttle missions. We haven't had a delivery since 2011 - until I got a call on console today. A reminder of what @Commercial_Crew means for this nation and the world. Go @spacex!
https://twitter.com/enterprise_flt/status/1102026529293377536
Quote
As the tradition goes, one white rose to signifies the sacrifices of Columbia, Challenger, and Apollo 1. The other roses are for the current @Space_Station crew of 3. And then there's an extra rose - why? It's for #ripley, the @SpaceX dummy. And it's the only fake rose.
Post by: catdlr on 03/03/2019 07:47 am
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 07:58 am
Post by: Scylla on 03/03/2019 08:04 am
Looks like the seats have the ability to slide back under the seat back, when not used to (see picture attached)??If your talking about the two center seats, they drop down out of the way of the control panal so the Commander and Pilot can get in to them. They then rise up to the control panel.
Post by: Targeteer on 03/03/2019 08:05 am
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 08:07 am
why isn't the keep out sphere mentioned during Soyuz and Progress approaches?
Another case of the commercial crew groups being held to higher standards than Shuttle or Roscosmos ever were?
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 08:17 am
Post by: EspenU on 03/03/2019 08:22 am
Dragon 2 HUD view - first time we've seen this. Heading to the KOS (Keep Out Sphere), but that screen. This is what the astros will use. Very nice layout.Like taken right out of a sci-fi movie. Makes the view from Soyuz look a little dated ;D
Post by: EspenU on 03/03/2019 08:23 am
Sounds like SpaceX lets its people talk over the NASA loop audio as well. They also can't mute music properly when astronauts are talking.Agreed. I like the SpaceX wait music, but they are NOT good at muting it when people are talking on the loop.
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 08:24 am
Sounds like SpaceX lets its people talk over the NASA loop audio as well. They also can't mute music properly when astronauts are talking.Agreed. I like the SpaceX wait music, but they are NOT good at muting it when people are talking on the loop.
It's incredibly unfortunate. They're such space nerds there but they don't want to let everyone else outside of SpaceX be space nerds as well by actually letting the content through unfiltered.
Post by: theinternetftw on 03/03/2019 08:26 am
Sounds like SpaceX lets its people talk over the NASA loop audio as well. They also can't mute music properly when astronauts are talking.
https://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream is an option for loop audio (it also currently has SpaceX coverage vox audio sans music, so it basically sounds like exactly what you want them to do)
Post by: Star One on 03/03/2019 08:40 am
One thing I don't like about the SpaceX coverage is that they feel the need to always be talking and never have silence. (Or have music playing.)
That’s the youth of today for you. Don’t seem to appreciate the value of silence.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/03/2019 08:41 am
why isn't the keep out sphere mentioned during Soyuz and Progress approaches?
Another case of the commercial crew groups being held to higher standards than Shuttle or Roscosmos ever were?
No, Soyuz and Progress also have to perform a flyover maneuver before entering the KOS and they also have the same process of following a series of imaginary gateways in space and they also have a lot of stops and goes during the process. It would be great to see at least one docking of Soyuz and/or Progress before stating this ;)
Edit: Adding to this, what would you expect from the first ever autonomous docking of a US spacecraft with the ISS? How many years have the russians been doing that? lol
Post by: hektor on 03/03/2019 08:47 am
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 09:08 am
Looks like SpaceX is compensating on the stream by doing optical zoom on the video stream.
Post by: laika_fr on 03/03/2019 09:26 am
(https://i.ibb.co/qCTDbJt/sts-135.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/LtDBvTT/dm-1.png)
Post by: theinternetftw on 03/03/2019 09:37 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/03/2019 09:39 am
With extreme HD, hard shadows, and a bit of h.264 de-noising, these views look literally unbelievable. Everybody expected CG to slowly approach real life video. I didn't get the memo that real life video was also going to slowly approach CG :)Whatever you do: do not read the 'chat' on live YouTube feeds... :'(
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 09:42 am
With extreme HD, hard shadows, and a bit of h.264 de-noising, these views look literally unbelievable. Everybody expected CG to slowly approach real life video. I didn't get the memo that real life video was also going to slowly approach CG :)Whatever you do: do not read the 'chat' on live YouTube feeds... :'(
The NASA streams all have chat disabled though.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/03/2019 09:46 am
Post by: clongton on 03/03/2019 09:56 am
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 10:03 am
Post by: clongton on 03/03/2019 10:03 am
Dragon is docked to the ISS. :)
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 10:04 am
I've noticed by body signals that there's an audio delay between when we hear the NASA audio loop and when the commentators hear the audio loop. It causes them to keep talking on top of the NASA audio loop.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/03/2019 10:06 am
Dragon 2 HUD view - first time we've seen this. Heading to the KOS (Keep Out Sphere), but that screen. This is what the astros will use. Very nice layout.
Like taken right out of a sci-fi movie. Makes the view from Soyuz look a little dated ;D
Doubtless due to the fact that most of the design team at SpaceX are likely video games fanatics and generally geeks like their boss. So, everything would look that bit more sci-fi.
IMO, Dragon-2's HUD layout is reminiscent of that of the Star League Gunstar in The Last Starfighter. I do not believe that this is coincidental, when you consider the story of that film. :D
Post by: JDTractorGuy on 03/03/2019 10:12 am
Post by: Stevenzop on 03/03/2019 10:15 am
While i'm here I guess here is the best place to post this? After a very unpleasant alarm clock at 5am UK time, I headed out into the typical Scottish gale force winds and managed to capture a reasonably bright ISS pass.
It's pretty low on the horizon from up here in Aberdeen, but the ISS can be seen as the bright streak from right to left, and Dragon 2 the very faint streak just below and slightly behind the station.
The second photo is a different crop with a bit more processing to try to bring out the Dragon, and also features a photobomb from a polar orbiting sat!
Taken approx 05:20 UTC 2019-03-03
Post by: saturnapollo on 03/03/2019 10:16 am
Quote
NASA having problems with camera focusing? Are these hand cameras or station cameras?
These will be station cameras, either controlled by the crew (probably too busy) or ground controllers. Auto focussing and exposure sometimes has difficuilty with blooming with small brightly lit objects against a lot of black, so focus might be off until someone overrides it with manual focus/exposure (which you saw happening when Dragon was quite far out), or the spacecraft against the black takes up more of the picture.
Can't imagine SpaceX being alowed to override NASA TV.
Keith
Post by: JDTractorGuy on 03/03/2019 10:16 am
Post by: saturnapollo on 03/03/2019 10:21 am
Quote
That’s the youth of today for you. Don’t seem to appreciate the value of silence.
Yes, that was annoying me as well. We seem to live in a society where silence is abhored. If this was 1969 I bet they would play music during quiet periods of lunar EVAs!
Keith
Post by: JDTractorGuy on 03/03/2019 10:22 am
Post by: Rondaz on 03/03/2019 10:24 am
Mark Garcia Posted on March 3, 2019
After making 18 orbits of Earth since its launch early Saturday morning, the Crew Dragon spacecraft successfully attached to the International Space Station’s Harmony module forward port via “soft capture” at 5:51 a.m. EST while the station was traveling more than 250 miles over the Pacific Ocean, just north of New Zealand.
As the spacecraft approached the space station, it demonstrated its automated control and maneuvering capabilities by arriving in place at about 492 feet (150 meters) away from the orbital laboratory then reversing course and backing away from the station to 590 feet (180 meters) before the final docking sequence from about 65 feet (20 meters) away.
The Crew Dragon used the station’s new international docking adapter for the first time since astronauts installed it during a spacewalk in August 2016, following its delivery to the station in the trunk of a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft on its ninth commercial resupply services mission.
For the Demo-1 mission, Crew Dragon is delivering more than 400 pounds of crew supplies and equipment to the space station. A lifelike test device named Ripley also is aboard the spacecraft, outfitted with sensors to provide data about potential effects on humans traveling in Crew Dragon.
The Crew Dragon is designed to stay docked to station for up to 210 days, although the spacecraft used for this flight test will remain docked to the space station only five days, departing Friday, March 8.
Opening of the Crew Dragon hatch will air on NASA Television and the agency’s website beginning at 8:30 a.m.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2019/03/03/spacex-crew-dragon-successfully-docks-to-station/
Post by: kevinof on 03/03/2019 10:25 am
Hadn't heard that one before.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 10:28 am
"In space no one can hear you scream" hear music or chat... thankfully...QuoteThat’s the youth of today for you. Don’t seem to appreciate the value of silence.
Yes, that was annoying me as well. We seem to live in a society where silence is abhored. If this was 1969 I bet they would play music during quiet periods of lunar EVAs!
Keith
Post by: laika_fr on 03/03/2019 10:32 am
From top to bottom Pad/launcher/Capsule it's unbelievable.
Post by: Comga on 03/03/2019 10:36 am
And nice to see the visual docking target with the small targets clamped to it.
Hello old friends. It’s been too long.
Post by: Riley1066 on 03/03/2019 10:38 am
Post by: saturnapollo on 03/03/2019 10:40 am
Post by: A12 on 03/03/2019 10:41 am
Is that feasible using IDA?
Post by: Riley1066 on 03/03/2019 10:44 am
I switched to the NASA ISS feed and the music is there so must be originating from NASA and not SpaceX.Its like the music playing when you are on hold with technical support ...
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 10:46 am
Post by: JDTractorGuy on 03/03/2019 10:47 am
I switched to the NASA ISS feed and the music is there so must be originating from NASA and not SpaceX.Its like the music playing when you are on hold with technical support ...
I have the NASA stream muted and open, and then http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream) stream playing with sound on. The linked stream doesn't have music but plays the ISS comms.
Post by: Riley1066 on 03/03/2019 10:47 am
Listen to the livestream from JD linked above, no music...I can't watch UStream on my TV ...
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 10:48 am
Post by: WBailey on 03/03/2019 10:50 am
I just thought I heard an alarm call out, anyone catch it?
[SMLI] Catastrophic failure [r something inaudible], brackets being uncertain.
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 10:50 am
I just thought I heard an alarm call out, anyone catch it?
Something "catastrophic failure" and that they'd talk to Russia about it. So some kind of alarm in the Russian side? I've never heard of any alarm called "catastrophic failure". Sounds extreme.
Post by: JDTractorGuy on 03/03/2019 10:50 am
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 10:52 am
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 10:52 am
I just thought I heard an alarm call out, anyone catch it?
[SMLI] Catastrophic failure [r something inaudible], brackets being uncertain.
"We just got the alarm enunciation SMLI [electron?] catastrophic failure rs." "Copy that we'll talk to Moscow about that."
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 10:53 am
Post by: saturnapollo on 03/03/2019 10:54 am
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 11:05 am
https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1102174742537224192
Google translation:QuoteRoscosmos congratulates @NASA with the successful docking of the new ship and emphasizes that flight safety must be immaculate. The state corporation welcomes the development of relations in the field of space exploration and expresses confidence that cooperation will develop
Not only did they congratulate NASA, not SpaceX, but Roscosmos is saying SpaceX isn't safe, while they themselves blew up a rocket and drilled a hole in their own capsule. Fricking really?
Post by: laika_fr on 03/03/2019 11:12 am
Crew on lunch break, i probably need one too.
By the way i've yet to hear details about the little "ceremony".
Post by: punder on 03/03/2019 11:27 am
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 11:32 am
Post by: JDTractorGuy on 03/03/2019 11:38 am
Post by: lcs on 03/03/2019 11:38 am
Post by: hektor on 03/03/2019 11:46 am
Post by: hektor on 03/03/2019 11:48 am
Post by: Star One on 03/03/2019 12:09 pm
With extreme HD, hard shadows, and a bit of h.264 de-noising, these views look literally unbelievable. Everybody expected CG to slowly approach real life video. I didn't get the memo that real life video was also going to slowly approach CG :)Whatever you do: do not read the 'chat' on live YouTube feeds... :'(
I can guess...throws hands in the air in despair.
Is it me or is the outside camera view making Dragon looking a little stretched out and thinner than it actually is? Is that a fisheye effect?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/03/2019 12:15 pm
Post by: Star One on 03/03/2019 12:17 pm
Mostly people trying to be ironically funny, accusing things like the astronauts' hands of being 'fake'.
Wouldn’t it better for no comments at all? Why does everything need commenting on these days?
Blimey I am sounding like an old codger today.
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/03/2019 12:23 pm
2010. First Dragon test launched on first F9
2012 Cargo deliveries start to be berthed at ISS
2019 First docking of crew rated Dragon to ISS
7 years from first arrival of a Dragon at ISS.
I'd love to know where most of that time went. Specifically who raised the lions share of the complaints, issues and questions.
My guess is either ASAP or the Russians, for different reasons.
ASAP couldn't believe an aerospace company that didn't exist during Mercury, Gemini, Apollo or Shuttle could be any good and the Russians because they know their era of charge-whatever-they-like is coming to an end.
TBH I doubted if NASA would give SX the first go at launching to the ISS, but they did.
Congratulations to all at SX for their perseverance.
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 12:23 pm
Mostly people trying to be ironically funny, accusing things like the astronauts' hands of being 'fake'.
Wouldn’t it better for no comments at all? Why does everything need commenting on these days?
Blimey I am sounding like an old codger today.
I mean, why are you on this forum? You want to be able to talk to other people about what you're talking about. It's the same thing. BTW in Asia they have comments literally scroll across their videos on top of the videos as on-screen text in China and Japan when you write a comment.
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 03/03/2019 12:24 pm
Post by: kevinof on 03/03/2019 12:28 pm
Looked like a bit of a struggle to get the cargo bag out from under the seat...in fact, did they have to remove the seat’s foot rest to get the bag out ??
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/03/2019 12:28 pm
I think the time line is interesting.
2010. First Dragon test launched on first F9
2012 Cargo deliveries start to be berthed at ISS
2019 First docking of crew rated Dragon to ISS
7 years from first arrival of a Dragon at ISS.
I'd love to know where most of that time went. Specifically who raised the lions share of the complaints, issues and questions.
My guess is either ASAP or the Russians, for different reasons.
ASAP couldn't believe an aerospace company that didn't exist during Mercury, Gemini, Apollo or Shuttle could be any good and the Russians because they know their era of charge-whatever-they-like is coming to an end.
TBH I doubted if NASA would give SX the first go at launching to the ISS, but they did.
Congratulations to all at SX for their perseverance.
FWIW, I suspect that, as with most of the time-line delays that SpaceX have suffered, the real problem is that it has turned out to be harder to do certain things than they seemed on paper and in PowerPoint presentations. Falcon-9 has been through several permutations due to actual practical issues uncovered due to operational experience and I imagine that Crewed Dragon has too.
I have no problem believing that Roscosmos may have dragged their feet a little due to political pressures from their central government. However, I do not believe that they are the primary cause of the length of time that it has taken for us to get where we are today.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/03/2019 12:33 pm
Post by: Star One on 03/03/2019 12:47 pm
Mostly people trying to be ironically funny, accusing things like the astronauts' hands of being 'fake'.
Wouldn’t it better for no comments at all? Why does everything need commenting on these days?
Blimey I am sounding like an old codger today.
I mean, why are you on this forum? You want to be able to talk to other people about what you're talking about. It's the same thing. BTW in Asia they have comments literally scroll across their videos on top of the videos as on-screen text in China and Japan when you write a comment.
Don’t think I didn’t see the irony of my comment after I posted it. I think I more meant that a lot of social media comments seem ‘empty’.
Post by: punder on 03/03/2019 12:48 pm
And going so smoothly! So far.
Got up about 10 minutes before docking. So glad I did, this is exciting! Pretty graphics replaced by reality.
Post by: Star One on 03/03/2019 12:54 pm
I think the time line is interesting.
2010. First Dragon test launched on first F9
2012 Cargo deliveries start to be berthed at ISS
2019 First docking of crew rated Dragon to ISS
7 years from first arrival of a Dragon at ISS.
I'd love to know where most of that time went. Specifically who raised the lions share of the complaints, issues and questions.
My guess is either ASAP or the Russians, for different reasons.
ASAP couldn't believe an aerospace company that didn't exist during Mercury, Gemini, Apollo or Shuttle could be any good and the Russians because they know their era of charge-whatever-they-like is coming to an end.
TBH I doubted if NASA would give SX the first go at launching to the ISS, but they did.
Congratulations to all at SX for their perseverance.
I don’t think there is any need to engage in looking for people to blame. Just that these things are hard, and probably more difficult than outsiders appreciate.
Post by: Razer on 03/03/2019 12:59 pm
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 01:00 pm
Ground controllers now turning on the fans to mix the air between the two spacecrafts and to allow the air inside the spacecraft to pass through the filtration system of ISS in order to make sure no foreign objects or debris could harm the crew members during activities inside VV.
I'm having to turn on the fans for my home entertainment system to keep it cool as it's getting cranky for having been on for like 6 hours straight.
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 03/03/2019 01:12 pm
Post by: Yellowstone10 on 03/03/2019 01:19 pm
How does the thrust of D2's SuperDracos compare to the engines on the Progress docked at the opposite end?
The S5.80 main engine on the back of the Progress can generate 660 pounds of thrust. A SuperDraco can generate about 16,000 pounds of thrust.
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 01:24 pm
How does the thrust of D2's SuperDracos compare to the engines on the Progress docked at the opposite end?
The S5.80 main engine on the back of the Progress can generate 660 pounds of thrust. A SuperDraco can generate about 16,000 pounds of thrust.
And it has 8 SuperDracos so a total of 128,000 pounds, so a little over half the thrust of a Merlin 1D.
Post by: hektor on 03/03/2019 01:34 pm
Post by: hektor on 03/03/2019 01:35 pm
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/03/2019 01:38 pm
I wonder how long before the microgravity indicator ends up stuck somewhere with duct tape.At least he’s on a leash...
He just wants attention
Post by: hektor on 03/03/2019 01:42 pm
Post by: hektor on 03/03/2019 01:43 pm
Post by: woods170 on 03/03/2019 01:46 pm
I wonder how long before the microgravity indicator ends up stuck somewhere with duct tape.At least he’s on a leash...
He just wants attention
And he'll probably be selling by much higher numbers this week:
https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG (https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG)
Sold by a "just launched" seller who goes by the name "Zero-G indicators". That was to be expected...
Post by: hektor on 03/03/2019 01:46 pm
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 01:49 pm
I wonder how long before the microgravity indicator ends up stuck somewhere with duct tape.At least he’s on a leash...
He just wants attention
And he'll probably be selling by much higher numbers this week:
https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG (https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG)
That's the scalpers. Original price is much better https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html
"EARTH - TEMPORARILY OUT OF STOCK DUE TO HIGH DEMAND $21.99"
Post by: woods170 on 03/03/2019 01:50 pm
I wonder how long before the microgravity indicator ends up stuck somewhere with duct tape.At least he’s on a leash...
He just wants attention
And he'll probably be selling by much higher numbers this week:
https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG (https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG)
That's the scalpers. Original price is much better https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html (https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html)
"EARTH - TEMPORARILY OUT OF STOCK DUE TO HIGH DEMAND $21.99"
No Kidding.....
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 03/03/2019 01:51 pm
\
And he'll probably be selling by much higher numbers this week:
https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG (https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG)
Yikes, asking prices now over $60. And out of stock at original supplier. The Mars one looks cute.
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 01:52 pm
I wonder how long before the microgravity indicator ends up stuck somewhere with duct tape.At least he’s on a leash...
He just wants attention
And he'll probably be selling by much higher numbers this week:
https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG (https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG)
That's the scalpers. Original price is much better https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html (https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html)
"EARTH - TEMPORARILY OUT OF STOCK DUE TO HIGH DEMAND $21.99"
No Kidding.....
Someone on Reddit emailed the site and the VP responded that they're sold out till April, and that was yesterday.
Post by: woods170 on 03/03/2019 01:54 pm
I wonder how long before the microgravity indicator ends up stuck somewhere with duct tape.At least he’s on a leash...
He just wants attention
And he'll probably be selling by much higher numbers this week:
https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG (https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG)
That's the scalpers. Original price is much better https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html (https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html)
"EARTH - TEMPORARILY OUT OF STOCK DUE TO HIGH DEMAND $21.99"
No Kidding.....
Someone on Reddit emailed the site and the VP responded that they're sold out till April, and that was yesterday.
That VP is probably going to send a gold-plated one over to SpaceX for quadrupling Celestial Buddies' revenue in a single day...
Post by: hektor on 03/03/2019 01:56 pm
Orion could use Moon plush ...
Post by: geza on 03/03/2019 02:05 pm
At least, the microgravity indicator started to perform. :-) I was quite disappointed, when he (she?) was lazy to fly away from the couch at SECO. Does engine cutoff happen gradually? With sudden termination of thrust I would expect elastic forces to launch him.I wonder how long before the microgravity indicator ends up stuck somewhere with duct tape.At least he’s on a leash...
He just wants attention
Post by: Jarnis on 03/03/2019 02:21 pm
Post by: RonM on 03/03/2019 02:27 pm
At least, the microgravity indicator started to perform. :-) I was quite disappointed, when he (she?) was lazy to fly away from the couch at SECO. Does engine cutoff happen gradually? With sudden termination of thrust I would expect elastic forces to launch him.I wonder how long before the microgravity indicator ends up stuck somewhere with duct tape.At least he’s on a leash...
He just wants attention
During the launch coverage someone said the engine was throttling down for SECO.
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 03/03/2019 02:35 pm
So, what's that in the cabin with Starman-2? A plushie of some sort? Didn't Elon want him getting 'lonely up in space' or something?Think of it the same as the plush toys the Russians bring along on the Soyuz flights, a zero G indicator.
So where does one go online to buy one of these for the grandchildren?
Can't find anything quite like it on Amazon. :(
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 02:36 pm
So, what's that in the cabin with Starman-2? A plushie of some sort? Didn't Elon want him getting 'lonely up in space' or something?Think of it the same as the plush toys the Russians bring along on the Soyuz flights, a zero G indicator.
So where does one go online to buy one of these for the grandchildren?
Can't find anything quite like it on Amazon. :(
https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html
Post by: kevinof on 03/03/2019 02:43 pm
Post by: lcs on 03/03/2019 02:45 pm
Post by: punder on 03/03/2019 02:45 pm
Post by: hopalong on 03/03/2019 02:47 pm
So, what's that in the cabin with Starman-2? A plushie of some sort? Didn't Elon want him getting 'lonely up in space' or something?Think of it the same as the plush toys the Russians bring along on the Soyuz flights, a zero G indicator.
So where does one go online to buy one of these for the grandchildren?
Can't find anything quite like it on Amazon. :(
https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html
For some reason, they are out of stock...... :)
Post by: mlindner on 03/03/2019 02:49 pm
So, what's that in the cabin with Starman-2? A plushie of some sort? Didn't Elon want him getting 'lonely up in space' or something?Think of it the same as the plush toys the Russians bring along on the Soyuz flights, a zero G indicator.
So where does one go online to buy one of these for the grandchildren?
Can't find anything quite like it on Amazon. :(
https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html
For some reason, they are out of stock...... :)
See their main page. https://www.celestialbuddies.com/
Post by: laika_fr on 03/03/2019 03:00 pm
Post by: Norm38 on 03/03/2019 03:31 pm
Post by: jtrame on 03/03/2019 03:37 pm
Post by: lcs on 03/03/2019 03:37 pm
It’ll be nice when there are already crew in the Dragon and they don’t have to don the WWI era gas masks and pretend there’s toxic mustard gas in there.
Its only that Tesla Roadster new car smell.
Post by: kevinof on 03/03/2019 04:03 pm
On the Dragon itself - I think it's one sexy spacecraft and the difference between it and Soyuz is massive. but then again they are generations apart and we'd expect that.
I liked Anne’s speech although personally I prefer “Earthers.” I’m struck by how roomy it is in the Dragon 2. Definitely the new order, but Russians don’t need to feel bad as Soyuz has been the standard bearer for so long.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 04:16 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucdZHR75iCM
Post by: libra on 03/03/2019 04:17 pm
When I heard catastrophic failure caution from cable re-config (possibly from the Russian side) I could help thinking of this... :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucdZHR75iCM
Not a good day to stop sniffing glue, obviously... :p
Post by: Lars-J on 03/03/2019 04:22 pm
"In space no one can hear you scream" hear music or chat... thankfully...QuoteThat’s the youth of today for you. Don’t seem to appreciate the value of silence.
Yes, that was annoying me as well. We seem to live in a society where silence is abhored. If this was 1969 I bet they would play music during quiet periods of lunar EVAs!
Keith
Ok old timers... soon you’ll all be yelling “get off my lawn!!” too to those music loving youngsters. ;-)
Anyways, I really enjoyed the docking. (Woke up in the middle of night to see it) Dragon 2 looks even sleeker and cooler in real life than renderings. So cool.
Post by: GWH on 03/03/2019 04:24 pm
I thought she was the worst. Instead of reciting a prepared speech on how wonderful this is for humanity etc etc why not just ad lib it and show some personality and passion. Thought it was terrible.
On the Dragon itself - I think it's one sexy spacecraft and the difference between it and Soyuz is massive. but then again they are generations apart and we'd expect that.I liked Anne’s speech although personally I prefer “Earthers.” I’m struck by how roomy it is in the Dragon 2. Definitely the new order, but Russians don’t need to feel bad as Soyuz has been the standard bearer for so long.
Keep in mind these people have to actually work and deal with whatever happened on the Russian side. Not like she was sitting around sipping lattes and getting psyched her speech for hours prior.
Post by: hkultala on 03/03/2019 04:25 pm
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket?
It's not a 12+-tonne spacecraft. I'ts closer to 11 tonnes.
So it should be about 11.5 tonnes.
Quote
This is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit.
This is the EASIEST orbit of practically any F9 launches. Most other orbits have been either GTO or polar, which both require more delta-v.
Post by: GWH on 03/03/2019 04:32 pm
This is the EASIEST orbit of practically any F9 launches. Most other orbits have been either GTO or polar, which both require more delta-v.
It's all related to trajectory. In order to maintain abort capabilities F9 (and Atlas V for that matter) need to fly flatter trajectories than the typical lofted ones so that an aborted capsule doesn't come slamming down into the atmosphere.
That puts the rocket further downrange and much harder to do RTLS.
Post by: spacenut on 03/03/2019 04:32 pm
Probably can't find it on Amazon since it wasn't a Blue Origin capsule.So, what's that in the cabin with Starman-2? A plushie of some sort? Didn't Elon want him getting 'lonely up in space' or something?Think of it the same as the plush toys the Russians bring along on the Soyuz flights, a zero G indicator.
So where does one go online to buy one of these for the grandchildren?
Can't find anything quite like it on Amazon. :(
Post by: abaddon on 03/03/2019 04:35 pm
It's not a 12+-tonne spacecraft. I'ts closer to 11 tonnes.Wrong, it's a shade over 12 tonnes (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47095.msg1916461#msg1916461) docked at the station, so it is easily 12+ tonnes when you consider the fuel expended to reach the station.
Post by: kevinof on 03/03/2019 04:37 pm
Opportunity missed.
I thought she was the worst. Instead of reciting a prepared speech on how wonderful this is for humanity etc etc why not just ad lib it and show some personality and passion. Thought it was terrible.
On the Dragon itself - I think it's one sexy spacecraft and the difference between it and Soyuz is massive. but then again they are generations apart and we'd expect that.I liked Anne’s speech although personally I prefer “Earthers.” I’m struck by how roomy it is in the Dragon 2. Definitely the new order, but Russians don’t need to feel bad as Soyuz has been the standard bearer for so long.
Keep in mind these people have to actually work and deal with whatever happened on the Russian side. Not like she was sitting around sipping lattes and getting psyched her speech for hours prior.
Post by: marsbase on 03/03/2019 04:37 pm
What a REALLY boring welcome. Do they really have to have it so formal?They like to have a little ceremony. You know, they don't get out much. :)
Post by: John.bender on 03/03/2019 04:43 pm
Post by: Khadgars on 03/03/2019 04:43 pm
Post by: rcoppola on 03/03/2019 05:00 pm
Of course they want a safe ride first and foremost, but come on, which Astronaut, Cosmonaut isn't thinking, "Damn, I have GOT to get a ride in that!"
Seeing buttons, switches, exposed steel and seats on the floor will be viewed as legacy, dated, obsolete. Dragon is the spacefaring design promise fulfilled from Sci-Fi of old.
Congratulations to the deign teams. You have done us all extremely proud.
Post by: loekf on 03/03/2019 05:14 pm
Houston just asked David for an estimate of the temp on Dragon to confirm the readings they have on console I assume. They asked if the temp felt like it was around 82-ish, David confirmed that it felt warmer in Dragon than in Node 2. (I was listening to the feed on https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html) which has audio)
What is the temp supposed to be ? 22 celsius ? 82 fahrenheit is 28 celsius.
Is air heated in a spacecraft btw ? Guess you do not want heated surfaces for convection.
Post by: Star One on 03/03/2019 05:14 pm
I wonder how long before the microgravity indicator ends up stuck somewhere with duct tape.At least he’s on a leash...
He just wants attention
And he'll probably be selling by much higher numbers this week:
https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG (https://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Buddies-Earth-Plush/dp/B005ESB6PG)
That's the scalpers. Original price is much better https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html (https://www.celestialbuddies.com/store/c2/Celestial_Buddies_.html)
"EARTH - TEMPORARILY OUT OF STOCK DUE TO HIGH DEMAND $21.99"
No Kidding.....
Someone on Reddit emailed the site and the VP responded that they're sold out till April, and that was yesterday.
That VP is probably going to send a gold-plated one over to SpaceX for quadrupling Celestial Buddies' revenue in a single day...
You can’t even get it in the UK for pre-order.
Post by: joseph.a.navin on 03/03/2019 05:26 pm
Post by: spacebleachers on 03/03/2019 05:41 pm
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 06:11 pm
I like music songs about silence..."In space no one can hear you scream" hear music or chat... thankfully...QuoteThat’s the youth of today for you. Don’t seem to appreciate the value of silence.
Yes, that was annoying me as well. We seem to live in a society where silence is abhored. If this was 1969 I bet they would play music during quiet periods of lunar EVAs!
Keith
Ok old timers... soon you’ll all be yelling “get off my lawn!!” too to those music loving youngsters. ;-)
Anyways, I really enjoyed the docking. (Woke up in the middle of night to see it) Dragon 2 looks even sleeker and cooler in real life than renderings. So cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLfCnGVeL4
Post by: joseph.a.navin on 03/03/2019 06:17 pm
Post by: Khadgars on 03/03/2019 06:18 pm
Crew is currently searching for the source of an odor, my guess is that it's dragon
Curious, what kind of odor?
Post by: joseph.a.navin on 03/03/2019 06:20 pm
Post by: HVM on 03/03/2019 06:28 pm
Chemical smell, not a burnt smell. Failed oxidizer?
Post by: butters on 03/03/2019 06:33 pm
Post by: HVM on 03/03/2019 06:37 pm
(So Dragons only release emissions on outside...)
"The scent of a brand new space ship"
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 06:41 pm
Post by: punder on 03/03/2019 06:47 pm
Post by: Prettz on 03/03/2019 06:50 pm
I think the time line is interesting.There was 3 years of sabotaged program funding during the beginning, and that hurt the timeline a lot.
2010. First Dragon test launched on first F9
2012 Cargo deliveries start to be berthed at ISS
2019 First docking of crew rated Dragon to ISS
7 years from first arrival of a Dragon at ISS.
I'd love to know where most of that time went. Specifically who raised the lions share of the complaints, issues and questions.
My guess is either ASAP or the Russians, for different reasons.
ASAP couldn't believe an aerospace company that didn't exist during Mercury, Gemini, Apollo or Shuttle could be any good and the Russians because they know their era of charge-whatever-they-like is coming to an end.
TBH I doubted if NASA would give SX the first go at launching to the ISS, but they did.
Congratulations to all at SX for their perseverance.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/03/2019 06:56 pm
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket?
It's not a 12+-tonne spacecraft. I'ts closer to 11 tonnes.
So it should be about 11.5 tonnes.QuoteThis is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit.
This is the EASIEST orbit of practically any F9 launches. Most other orbits have been either GTO or polar, which both require more delta-v.
The DM-1 Crew Dragon's mass is 12055kg it is literally a 12+ metric ton spacecraft
Post by: Damon Hill on 03/03/2019 07:35 pm
FYI on the Amazon comment, I went to Blue Origin in Kent to see their facility and they told me that whenever SpaceX had a big launch or rendezvous the BO crew would all get together in front of a big screen and watch. They would cheer enthusiastically on SpaceX’s success. I thought that was great.
A high tide lifts all ships.
Post by: ZachF on 03/03/2019 08:09 pm
Probably can't find it on Amazon since it wasn't a Blue Origin capsule.So, what's that in the cabin with Starman-2? A plushie of some sort? Didn't Elon want him getting 'lonely up in space' or something?Think of it the same as the plush toys the Russians bring along on the Soyuz flights, a zero G indicator.
So where does one go online to buy one of these for the grandchildren?
Can't find anything quite like it on Amazon. :(
(https://media.giphy.com/media/dJRcmrBNcWwlvJsNot/giphy.gif)
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 03/03/2019 08:19 pm
Post by: hopalong on 03/03/2019 08:21 pm
Probably can't find it on Amazon since it wasn't a Blue Origin capsule.So, what's that in the cabin with Starman-2? A plushie of some sort? Didn't Elon want him getting 'lonely up in space' or something?Think of it the same as the plush toys the Russians bring along on the Soyuz flights, a zero G indicator.
So where does one go online to buy one of these for the grandchildren?
Can't find anything quite like it on Amazon. :(
They were available - search on 'GiggleBeaver Celestial Buddies - Earth Cuddly Toy' in Amazon, but out of stock, there was a run on them a couple of days before the launch.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/dJRcmrBNcWwlvJsNot/giphy.gif)
Post by: Star One on 03/03/2019 08:30 pm
Post by: Electric Paint on 03/03/2019 09:32 pm
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket?
It's not a 12+-tonne spacecraft. I'ts closer to 11 tonnes.
So it should be about 11.5 tonnes.QuoteThis is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit.
This is the EASIEST orbit of practically any F9 launches. Most other orbits have been either GTO or polar, which both require more delta-v.
The DM-1 Crew Dragon's mass is 12055kg it is literally a 12+ metric ton spacecraft
The Block 5 does have enough performance to return to the launch site, even with a Dragon 2, but for this mission, NASA stipulated that the booster stage remain ignited for a longer period, in order to apply a safety margin of performance for the upper stage. I believe that this was mentioned in one of the NSF articles covering this mission.
Post by: Joffan on 03/03/2019 09:37 pm
Will they in future be using the Dragon 2 when it’s docked to the ISS as part of the living space of the station being as unlike Soyuz it is quite roomy?With a little screen they could probably use the Dragon for two sleeping quarters.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2019 09:47 pm
Or a movie theater...Will they in future be using the Dragon 2 when it’s docked to the ISS as part of the living space of the station being as unlike Soyuz it is quite roomy?With a little screen they could probably use the Dragon for two sleeping quarters.
Post by: daedalus1 on 03/03/2019 09:50 pm
Will they in future be using the Dragon 2 when it’s docked to the ISS as part of the living space of the station being as unlike Soyuz it is quite roomy?
The Soyuz is quite roomy with the orbital module.
Post by: marsbase on 03/03/2019 09:51 pm
Showing Musk films 24/7 :) https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1907769/#actorOr a movie theater...Will they in future be using the Dragon 2 when it’s docked to the ISS as part of the living space of the station being as unlike Soyuz it is quite roomy?With a little screen they could probably use the Dragon for two sleeping quarters.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/03/2019 10:03 pm
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket?
It's not a 12+-tonne spacecraft. I'ts closer to 11 tonnes.
So it should be about 11.5 tonnes.QuoteThis is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit.
This is the EASIEST orbit of practically any F9 launches. Most other orbits have been either GTO or polar, which both require more delta-v.
The DM-1 Crew Dragon's mass is 12055kg it is literally a 12+ metric ton spacecraft
The Block 5 does have enough performance to return to the launch site, even with a Dragon 2, but for this mission, NASA stipulated that the booster stage remain ignited for a longer period, in order to apply a safety margin of performance for the upper stage. I believe that this was mentioned in one of the NSF articles covering this mission.
I know, it's not like I've been precisely out of the loop and that I don't know what they have said on the post-FRR briefing, the pre-launch press conference and the post-launch press conference. I just mentioned that "this kind of payload" sounds as it is, I don't know, like SAOCOM 1A or satellites like that and no. This is a 12 metric ton monster and if on top of that they have to reserve performance "just in case", then it's highly understandable why they can't do an RTLS landing.
Post by: Barrie on 03/03/2019 10:15 pm
An orbital grindhouse? I think Musk would love that idea!Showing Musk films 24/7 :) https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1907769/#actorOr a movie theater...Will they in future be using the Dragon 2 when it’s docked to the ISS as part of the living space of the station being as unlike Soyuz it is quite roomy?With a little screen they could probably use the Dragon for two sleeping quarters.
Alternatively, iirc the ATV was used as a quiet space, so it may go that way
Post by: theonlyspace on 03/03/2019 10:24 pm
Post by: ugordan on 03/03/2019 10:33 pm
Post by: JimO on 03/03/2019 10:38 pm
Post by: Torbjorn Larsson, OM on 03/03/2019 10:43 pm
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket?
It's not a 12+-tonne spacecraft. I'ts closer to 11 tonnes.
So it should be about 11.5 tonnes.QuoteThis is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit.
This is the EASIEST orbit of practically any F9 launches. Most other orbits have been either GTO or polar, which both require more delta-v.
The DM-1 Crew Dragon's mass is 12055kg it is literally a 12+ metric ton spacecraft
The Block 5 does have enough performance to return to the launch site, even with a Dragon 2, but for this mission, NASA stipulated that the booster stage remain ignited for a longer period, in order to apply a safety margin of performance for the upper stage. I believe that this was mentioned in one of the NSF articles covering this mission.
Didn't Scott Manley post a video comparison between the Dragons with a flatter flight profile for crewed Dragon to limit the (I assume down range) accelerations in case of abort? I don't see why NASA would be concerned with US performance as much as with test-as-you-fly scenarios.
EDIT: Spelling.
Post by: Comga on 03/03/2019 11:10 pm
SpaceX Demo-1 Dragon Spacecraft - Welcoming Ceremony at the International Space Station
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6662 (http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6662)
Great words by astronaut Anne McClain:
"Our sincere congratulations to all Earthlings who have enabled the opening of this next chapter in space exploration. To the International Space Station teams, past and present, who stand guard 24 hours a day at control centers from Moskow to Japan to Houston. Congratulations to the teams at SpaceX and Boeing, who have been working diligently to define what this new era of commercial spaceflight will look like. And congratulations to all nations, private space firms and individuals, who work up every day, driven by the magic of exploration. This day belongs to all of us.
Spaceflight gives us a chance to reflect on the context of our existence. We are reminded that we are human, before any of our differences, before all of the lines that are drawn by dividers. And we are reminded that we are at our best when we are part of something bigger than ourselves. In 1957, just over 60 years ago, history changed when Russia launched Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite. People across the globe gathered in backyards and looked up at the night sky, hoping to catch a glimpse. A few years later, people of all nationalities grabbed hands, hoping and praying for Yuri Gagarin’s successful launch, as he became the first human in space. And in 1969 every TV across the globe was tuned in as Buzz, Michael and Neil embarked on the first human journey to the moon.
Today, human advancement of exploration continues, as the first new space vehicle designed for humans in over 40 years arrived at our front door, welcomed by our crew of one Russian, one Canadian and one American, who have been living together as family for three months onboard the International Space Station. These events remind us that we are more alike than different; that we can be united by a cause that is not based on fear, threat or common enemy, but rather on a bold endeavour, an insatiable curiosity to go beyond what is known, and to do what has never been done. We humans were built for exploration, and we are built to do it together."
I agree with the previous comments that this speech was stilted and perfunctory. More befitting a political appointee than an astronaut.
"Earthlings"? Really?
Congratulations equally to SpaceX and Boeing? (For an extra $1.6B, using an existing rocket, with a head start, Boeing's OFT-1 is months behind SpaceX's DM-1.) This day doesn't belong to all of us. It belongs primarily to SpaceX.
People in the west didn't look for Sputnik in awe. It was terrifying. Launched by a Soviet ICBM, playing their national anthem, and flying unstoppably overhead.
We weren't cheering for Gargarin because NOBODY KNEW. It was secret. It was Soviet.
All the world's TVs weren't tuned to Apollo 11. I know. I was in a third world country and missed it. Sorry. Too "poetic" and grandiose.
Today is the 50th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 9. Rusty Schweikart made those observations about invisible boundaries after that flight. It was enough to get him labeled the "hippie astronaut". Now they are platitudes.
Some of us ARE sounding like grumpy old men today.
And it's a GREAT day! Dragon at ISS!
Post by: Comga on 03/03/2019 11:23 pm
Will they in future be using the Dragon 2 when it’s docked to the ISS as part of the living space of the station being as unlike Soyuz it is quite roomy?With a little screen they could probably use the Dragon for two sleeping quarters.
How about the big screens, the video screens?
Astronauts could go in there to watch movies, like the new Apollo 11 documentary (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47285.msg1905430#msg1905430).
(Wouldn't that be ironic.)
Just being in that clean, uncluttered volume should be a break from the intensely hardware saturated modules.
Post by: theinternetftw on 03/03/2019 11:31 pm
This day doesn't belong to all of us. It belongs primarily to SpaceX.
It certainly belongs to SpaceX. It also belongs to NASA for directing the effort, especially to those who got the ball rolling in the late 2000s and kept it rolling after.
And it belongs to all Americans, as we paid the billions necessary to accomplish it.
Post by: theinternetftw on 03/03/2019 11:48 pm
That will belong to all of us.
This is for the same reason that the Information Age doesn't belong to Tim Berners-Lee and our modern world of aviation doesn't belong to the Curtiss-Wright Corporation. You can't hoard a revolution.
I will note that I don't think we're quite yet at that revolution. Billions in government funds does not commercial viability make.
But this is certainly a day of portent for that coming era.
Post by: punder on 03/04/2019 12:06 am
Edit, political rant deleted.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/04/2019 12:06 am
The DM-1 Crew Dragon's mass is 12055kg it is literally a 12+ metric ton spacecraftAt docking it was predicted to be 12055 kg. That means that at liftoff it was hundreds of kg heavier. I've guessed 12,500-ish kg. JCM has guessed 13,000 kg. Someone else estimated about 12,425 kg. Of course it will be heavier on future missions with crew and/or cargo.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/04/2019 12:21 am
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/04/2019 12:34 am
Why barge and not land landing for the first stage?
I thought it would have enough performance for coming back to cape canaveral on this kind of payload.
This kind of payload? What do you expect with a +12 metric ton spacecraft on top of the rocket?
It's not a 12+-tonne spacecraft. I'ts closer to 11 tonnes.
So it should be about 11.5 tonnes.QuoteThis is the heaviest thing a Falcon 9 has ever launched to ANY orbit.
This is the EASIEST orbit of practically any F9 launches. Most other orbits have been either GTO or polar, which both require more delta-v.
The DM-1 Crew Dragon's mass is 12055kg it is literally a 12+ metric ton spacecraft
The Block 5 does have enough performance to return to the launch site, even with a Dragon 2, but for this mission, NASA stipulated that the booster stage remain ignited for a longer period, in order to apply a safety margin of performance for the upper stage. I believe that this was mentioned in one of the NSF articles covering this mission.
Didn't Scott Manley post a video comparison between the Dragons with a flatter flight profile for crewed Dragon to limit the (I assume down range) accelerations in case of abort? I don't see why NASA would be concerned with US performance as much as with test-as-you-fly scenarios.
EDIT: Spelling.
Funny thing is that the actual launch profile was a lofted trajectory, you just have to see the numbers on the webcast and compare to other missions. I'm still trying to understand why NASA would like that but...
Post by: Comga on 03/04/2019 03:38 am
Funny thing is that the actual launch profile was a lofted trajectory, you just have to see the numbers on the webcast and compare to other missions. I'm still trying to understand why NASA would like that but..
We see Stephen's still at T+2:42 with 6693 km/hr at 90.5 km for DM-1 just after MECO
Stephen posted a still at T+2:32 with 5716 km/hr at 73.6 km for SpX-16 just after S1/S2 separation
DM-1 SpX-16
T(sec) V(km,/hr) H(km) V(km,/hr) H(km)
1:00 1022 8.2 1122 8.5
1:30/2 1982 19.5 2156 21.6
2:00 3733 40.8 3721 40.9
2:32 6281 76.2 5716 73.6 (DM-1 values from replay)
2:42 6693 90.5
So DM-1 was both higher and faster at MECO.
At 2:32 it looks like DM-1 was significantly faster but not much higher.
Is that sufficient to conclude that it was lofted?
Having it lofted despite the statements to the contrary would be very interesting.
(There was someone on the forum who managed to extract and plot the entire data sets)
edit: typo corrected
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/04/2019 04:47 am
Quote from: Anne McClainToday, human advancement of exploration continues, as the first new space vehicle designed for humans in over 40 years arrived at our front door,...
The author of that speech forgot about Shenzhou, New Glenn, SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo!Quote from: Anne McClainA few years later, people of all nationalities grabbed hands, hoping and praying for Yuri Gagarin’s successful launch, as he became the first human in space.
As pointed out above, Vostok 1 was launched in secret, so the only ones who were praying (and in secret) were the religious Soviet's who knew about the flight!
Post by: alang on 03/04/2019 06:16 am
Quote from: Anne McClainToday, human advancement of exploration continues, as the first new space vehicle designed for humans in over 40 years arrived at our front door,...
The author of that speech forgot about Shenzhou, New Glenn, SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo!QuoteA few years later, people of all nationalities grabbed hands, hoping and praying for Yuri Gagarin’s successful launch, as he became the first human in space.
As pointed out above, Vostok 1 was launched in secret, so the only ones who were praying (and in secret) were the religious Soviet's who knew about the flight!
This stuff washes over me. Elected politicians say stupider things.
I suppose that people focussed enough to become astronauts don't have time to learn 'fripperies' like history. I was shocked that Hadfield could play guitar.
I seem to recall once reading that the Soviet Union kept Gagarin's planned ejection seat landing secret for years, supposedly because of fears it might not meet some international institution's definition of a successful spaceflight. If true it seems very strange today.
Post by: meekGee on 03/04/2019 07:13 am
Today, human advancement of exploration continues, as the first new space vehicle designed for humans in over 40 years arrived at our front door,...
The author of that speech forgot about Shenzhou, New Glenn, SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo!QuoteA few years later, people of all nationalities grabbed hands, hoping and praying for Yuri Gagarin’s successful launch, as he became the first human in space.
As pointed out above, Vostok 1 was launched in secret, so the only ones who were praying (and in secret) were the religious Soviet's who knew about the flight!
I think they meant "real spacecraft that go to space for real".
Not sub orbital, not on paper.
This still leaves Shenzhou tho, that's correct. (Unless they want to claim it's a soyuz derivative)
Post by: tea monster on 03/04/2019 07:22 am
America designed plenty of space vehicles in the past 40 years. All of them got cancelled though - some while actually in flight testing (X-38). If America had the determination and foresight to actually follow through on one of these designs, then they wouldn't be in the ridiculous situation they found themselves in till now.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/04/2019 07:36 am
"the first new space vehicle designed for humans in over 40 years"
America designed plenty of space vehicles in the past 40 years. All of them got cancelled though - some while actually in flight testing (X-38). If America had the determination and foresight to actually follow through on one of these designs, then they wouldn't be in the ridiculous situation they found themselves in till now.
Also, Orion already had 1 testflight, although on a non human-rated launch vehicle. One could argue that that was designed over the last 40 years.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/04/2019 08:06 am
Funny thing is that the actual launch profile was a lofted trajectory, you just have to see the numbers on the webcast and compare to other missions. I'm still trying to understand why NASA would like that but..
We see Stephen's still at T+2:42 with 6693 km/hr at 90.5 km for DM-1 just after MECO
Stephen posted a still at T+2:32 with 5716 km/hr at 73.6 km for SpX-16 just after S1/S2 separation
DM-1 SpX-16
T(sec) V(km,/hr) H(km) V(km,/hr) H(km)
1:00 1022 8.2 1122 8.5
1:30/2 1982 19.5 2156 21.6
2:00 3733 40.8 3721 40.9
2:32 6281 76.2 5716 73.6 (DM-1 values from replay)
2:42 6693 90.5
So DM-1 was both higher and faster at MECO.
At 2:32 it looks like DM-1 was significantly faster but not much higher.
Is that sufficient to conclude that it was lofted?
Having it lofted despite the statements to the contrary would be very interesting.
(There was someone on the forum who managed to extract and plot the entire data sets)
edit: typo corrected
It was what I told you the other day. Even though we were told this was not a lofted trajectory it was indeed a lofted trajectory. Compare any of those numbers with a GTO mission and you'll see those go lower and faster which means they fly a shallower trajectory.
Post by: Star One on 03/04/2019 08:07 am
Will they in future be using the Dragon 2 when it’s docked to the ISS as part of the living space of the station being as unlike Soyuz it is quite roomy?
The Soyuz is quite roomy with the orbital module.
I thought it being put into orbital hibernation precluded its use.
Post by: su27k on 03/04/2019 08:45 am
It was what I told you the other day. Even though we were told this was not a lofted trajectory it was indeed a lofted trajectory. Compare any of those numbers with a GTO mission and you'll see those go lower and faster which means they fly a shallower trajectory.
I don't think anyone official told us this was not a lofted trajectory, in fact Hans made it clear it is a lofted trajectory in the press conference, it's just nobody here believes him...
Post by: woods170 on 03/04/2019 09:06 am
It was what I told you the other day. Even though we were told this was not a lofted trajectory it was indeed a lofted trajectory. Compare any of those numbers with a GTO mission and you'll see those go lower and faster which means they fly a shallower trajectory.
I don't think anyone official told us this was not a lofted trajectory, in fact Hans made it clear it is a lofted trajectory in the press conference, it's just nobody here believes him...
Folks here only need to compare the Stage 2 telemetry numbers with those of the average GTO mission. In doing so it will become quite clear that Demo-1 very much flew a lofted trajectory: the average GTO mission stages at an altitude of ~ 68 km with a velocity of ~ 8300 km/h, whereas Demo-1 staged at an altitude of 88 km and a velocity of just ~ 6700 km/h. So, staging was 20 km higher than a GTO mission and 1600 km/h slower than a GTO mission.
So yes, very much a lofted trajectory: trading speed for altitude in the early phase of the mission.
Post by: daedalus1 on 03/04/2019 09:22 am
Will they in future be using the Dragon 2 when it’s docked to the ISS as part of the living space of the station being as unlike Soyuz it is quite roomy?
The Soyuz is quite roomy with the orbital module.
I thought it being put into orbital hibernation precluded its use.
I'm just responding to someone who implied that the Soyuz wasn't roomy. I have no idea wether either spacecraft can be used when docked.
Post by: ugordan on 03/04/2019 09:50 am
Folks here only need to compare the Stage 2 telemetry numbers with those of the average GTO mission. In doing so it will become quite clear that Demo-1 very much flew a lofted trajectory: the average GTO mission stages at an altitude of ~ 68 km with a velocity of ~ 8300 km/h, whereas Demo-1 staged at an altitude of 88 km and a velocity of just ~ 6700 km/h. So, staging was 20 km higher than a GTO mission and 1600 km/h slower than a GTO mission.
So yes, very much a lofted trajectory: trading speed for altitude in the early phase of the mission.
There's also the fact that the 1st stage landed 10 minutes after launch, which IIRC is the longest delay ever, additional hint that it was flying a lofted trajectory.
Post by: John Santos on 03/04/2019 10:53 am
As did Buran, which I think was much closer to being habitable than Orion EFT-1 was."the first new space vehicle designed for humans in over 40 years"
America designed plenty of space vehicles in the past 40 years. All of them got cancelled though - some while actually in flight testing (X-38). If America had the determination and foresight to actually follow through on one of these designs, then they wouldn't be in the ridiculous situation they found themselves in till now.
Also, Orion already had 1 testflight, although on a non human-rated launch vehicle. One could argue that that was designed over the last 40 years.
Post by: Jcc on 03/04/2019 11:00 am
Folks here only need to compare the Stage 2 telemetry numbers with those of the average GTO mission. In doing so it will become quite clear that Demo-1 very much flew a lofted trajectory: the average GTO mission stages at an altitude of ~ 68 km with a velocity of ~ 8300 km/h, whereas Demo-1 staged at an altitude of 88 km and a velocity of just ~ 6700 km/h. So, staging was 20 km higher than a GTO mission and 1600 km/h slower than a GTO mission.
So yes, very much a lofted trajectory: trading speed for altitude in the early phase of the mission.
There's also the fact that the 1st stage landed 10 minutes after launch, which IIRC is the longest delay ever, additional hint that it was flying a lofted trajectory.
And the reason to fly a lofted trajectory? That is so in an abort Dragon would land closer to shore, allowing the rescue ships to get there sooner.
Post by: ugordan on 03/04/2019 11:15 am
And the reason to fly a lofted trajectory? That is so in an abort Dragon would land closer to shore, allowing the rescue ships to get there sooner.
I'm not sure about that reasoning especially since an abort can theoretically happen at any point during boost phase so you could theoretically end up anywhere in the Atlantic. On a F9, the primary consideration for an early abort is probably some failure at stage separation/MVac ignition as those are the single, discrete events that happen on a launch. For a crew recovery, I'd think you'd prefer a shallower trajectory at MECO, one that gives you more prograde than upward velocity as that would ensure Dragon would reenter shallower and thus limit max G-s the crew would experience on reentry. Basically, the same reasoning that was once used against Atlas V and its "black zones".
Burning the 1st stage longer than on a typical LEO launch made sense to me, toward that goal of attaining more prograde velocity, but not in conjunction with a very lofted trajectory that seems to have been flown. Maybe I'm overinflating the reentry G concern based on Atlas V as Atlas V CCB burns out at a much higher velocity than F9 and the Centaur is much more underpowered for LEO launches so those two "lofted" trajectories are not nearly as comparable. Of note here is that the 2nd stage coasted to 221 km before falling down to 198 km at SECO, that kind of a trajectory is usually seen on "underpowered" 2nd stages, I don't recall seeing that amount of drop on other F9 launches.
I think we need some of the trajectory modelling wizards to crank some simulations to understand this better.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/04/2019 11:41 am
https://www.roscosmos.ru/26164/
Interesting that they should decide to focus on the first ever use of gas masks on the ISS ...
Google translate:
Quote
Crew Dragon arrives at the International Space Station
03/04/2019 3:03 pm
On March 3, the new spacecraft Crew Dragon arrived at the International Space Station. He was met by Oleg Kononenko, Ann McClain and David San-Jacques. A couple of hours after docking, hatches were opened between the ISS and the spacecraft.
For the first time in the history of the station, the crew worked in Russian-made IPK (Space Isolating Gas Mask) gas masks. They are designed to protect the astronauts' respiratory organs and eyes from toxic gas and vapor products. Oleg Kononenko and David San-Jacques took air samples at the Dragon, tested gas masks and reported to the Earth how they felt in them.
As the astronaut notes, in this expedition he managed for the first time to test a space gas mask and a fire extinguisher, which we wrote about earlier .
We add that Oleg Kononenko is not the first to meet on board the ISS a new ship. In May 2012, the first private Dragon “truck” was docked, he was met by the crew of the ISS-31 expedition under the command of Oleg Kononenko.
Post by: gdelottle on 03/04/2019 11:43 am
Today, human advancement of exploration continues, as the first new space vehicle designed for humans in over 40 years arrived at our front door,...
The author of that speech forgot about Shenzhou, New Glenn, SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo!
Not necessarily, if you interpret that statement all together: not just "the first new space vehicle", but "the first new space vehicle [...] arrived at our front door".
BTW, if I am not wrong, more than from any other visible aspect, I am really impressed by the internal "design" of Dragon. This is the very first case in which industrial design become a basic requirement in an operative space vehicle, apart a few small details of previous spaceships, like logos.
Another change of reference, "made in SpaceX".
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/04/2019 11:54 am
It was what I told you the other day. Even though we were told this was not a lofted trajectory it was indeed a lofted trajectory. Compare any of those numbers with a GTO mission and you'll see those go lower and faster which means they fly a shallower trajectory.
I don't think anyone official told us this was not a lofted trajectory, in fact Hans made it clear it is a lofted trajectory in the press conference, it's just nobody here believes him...
Well, actually, for Atlas V we were told that. "Centaur has two engines to allow a shallower trajectory". We just extrapolated that to Falcon 9 and thought it will do the same but it's clear it didn't and so now the question is why the two fly such different trajectories.
Post by: niwax on 03/04/2019 12:11 pm
It was what I told you the other day. Even though we were told this was not a lofted trajectory it was indeed a lofted trajectory. Compare any of those numbers with a GTO mission and you'll see those go lower and faster which means they fly a shallower trajectory.
I don't think anyone official told us this was not a lofted trajectory, in fact Hans made it clear it is a lofted trajectory in the press conference, it's just nobody here believes him...
Well, actually, for Atlas V we were told that. "Centaur has two engines to allow a shallower trajectory". We just extrapolated that to Falcon 9 and thought it will do the same but it's clear it didn't and so now the question is why the two fly such different trajectories.
Atlas flies very lofted as it is, so shallow for Atlas may well be what SpaceX is doing anyways. We would need to compare the trajectories directly, and even then the capsules have different abort and reentry characteristics.
Post by: AS-503 on 03/04/2019 12:21 pm
And the reason to fly a lofted trajectory? That is so in an abort Dragon would land closer to shore, allowing the rescue ships to get there sooner.
I'm not sure about that reasoning especially since an abort can theoretically happen at any point during boost phase so you could theoretically end up anywhere in the Atlantic. On a F9, the primary consideration for an early abort is probably some failure at stage separation/MVac ignition as those are the single, discrete events that happen on a launch. For a crew recovery, I'd think you'd prefer a shallower trajectory at MECO, one that gives you more prograde than upward velocity as that would ensure Dragon would reenter shallower and thus limit max G-s the crew would experience on reentry. Basically, the same reasoning that was once used against Atlas V and its "black zones".
Burning the 1st stage longer than on a typical LEO launch made sense to me, toward that goal of attaining more prograde velocity, but not in conjunction with a very lofted trajectory that seems to have been flown. Maybe I'm overinflating the reentry G concern based on Atlas V as Atlas V CCB burns out at a much higher velocity than F9 and the Centaur is much more underpowered for LEO launches so those two "lofted" trajectories are not nearly as comparable. Of note here is that the 2nd stage coasted to 221 km before falling down to 198 km at SECO, that kind of a trajectory is usually seen on "underpowered" 2nd stages, I don't recall seeing that amount of drop on other F9 launches.
I think we need some of the trajectory modelling wizards to crank some simulations to understand this better.
I've attached Wayne Hale's blog posts on black zones where he uses the the words "flat" or "depressed" to describe typical manned trajectories and "lofted" to describe non-manned trajectories. This thread has me confused over the word choice to describe the DM-1 trajectory as "lofted", when we know that the parabolic arc of the first stage was in fact long and wide (not lofted). Thus the down range landing. Are we getting semantically tangled up over what these words mean with respect to this (and other) flight(s)? Are we repeating some one elses technically incorrect wording for this trajectory?
Post by: SunnyRockeLove on 03/04/2019 12:24 pm
Houston just asked David for an estimate of the temp on Dragon to confirm the readings they have on console I assume. They asked if the temp felt like it was around 82-ish, David confirmed that it felt warmer in Dragon than in Node 2. (I was listening to the feed on https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html) which has audio)
Someone who attended Nasa social spoke to someone from the ISS program. They were really surprised that someone even listens to the space to ground loop.
I think there are lots of us that do.
Post by: ugordan on 03/04/2019 12:38 pm
This thread has me confused over the word choice to describe the DM-1 trajectory as "lofted", when we know that the parabolic arc of the first stage was in fact long and wide (not lofted). Thus the down range landing. Are we getting semantically tangled up over what these words mean with respect to this (and other) flight(s)? Are we repeating some one elses technically incorrect wording for this trajectory?
No, we're not getting semantically tangled up. Check out OneSpeed's excellent visualization (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42389.msg1918001#msg1918001) of CRS-16 (RTLS!) vs DM1- 1st stage trajectories. It is clear that DM-1 flew a more lofted trajectory than typical for F9 standards. In Wayne Hale's words, CRS-16 flew a more flat/depressed trajectory, even though it was doing a RTLS.
Post by: woods170 on 03/04/2019 12:48 pm
Folks here only need to compare the Stage 2 telemetry numbers with those of the average GTO mission. In doing so it will become quite clear that Demo-1 very much flew a lofted trajectory: the average GTO mission stages at an altitude of ~ 68 km with a velocity of ~ 8300 km/h, whereas Demo-1 staged at an altitude of 88 km and a velocity of just ~ 6700 km/h. So, staging was 20 km higher than a GTO mission and 1600 km/h slower than a GTO mission.
So yes, very much a lofted trajectory: trading speed for altitude in the early phase of the mission.
There's also the fact that the 1st stage landed 10 minutes after launch, which IIRC is the longest delay ever, additional hint that it was flying a lofted trajectory.
Yeah... the stage had to pass through (at least) 20 additional kilometers of altitude (compared to the average GTO launch) on its way back to the drone ship. That takes a little extra time.
Post by: ugordan on 03/04/2019 01:00 pm
There's also the fact that the 1st stage landed 10 minutes after launch, which IIRC is the longest delay ever, additional hint that it was flying a lofted trajectory.
I stand corrected, the longest delay until landing was actually on the Formosat-5 launch, MECO was at 6800 kmh at 86 km, 1st stage landed at around T+10:45 after launch, the trajectory was so lofted that by the time the reentry burn started, the exhaust wasn't even glowing yet when hitting the hypersonic airflow. That wasn't a Block 5 though, so not directly comparable.
Post by: Star One on 03/04/2019 01:05 pm
Will they in future be using the Dragon 2 when it’s docked to the ISS as part of the living space of the station being as unlike Soyuz it is quite roomy?
The Soyuz is quite roomy with the orbital module.
I thought it being put into orbital hibernation precluded its use.
I'm just responding to someone who implied that the Soyuz wasn't roomy. I have no idea wether either spacecraft can be used when docked.
I should have added to my question does orbital hibernation preclude the use of Dragon 2 for living space.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/04/2019 01:35 pm
Welcome to the forum! :)Houston just asked David for an estimate of the temp on Dragon to confirm the readings they have on console I assume. They asked if the temp felt like it was around 82-ish, David confirmed that it felt warmer in Dragon than in Node 2. (I was listening to the feed on https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html) which has audio)
Someone who attended Nasa social spoke to someone from the ISS program. They were really surprised that someone even listens to the space to ground loop.
I think there are lots of us that do.
Post by: gongora on 03/04/2019 05:44 pm
Post by: DigitalMan on 03/04/2019 05:58 pm
Post by: Roy_H on 03/04/2019 06:13 pm
Those are some weird looking external survey pictures in the update thread. I suppose I hadn't noticed all those spots like that, any thoughts?I would like to know what all those yellow spots that look like glue are, and their purpose.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/04/2019 06:21 pm
Those are some weird looking external survey pictures in the update thread. I suppose I hadn't noticed all those spots like that, any thoughts?I would like to know what all those yellow spots that look like glue are, and their purpose.
Crazy speculation mode on:
1. Micrometeorite Impact Craters.
2. Deliberate little dents to detach airflow and decrease drag - like on a golfball.
3. Screw/Bolt-holes filled with paint/thermal/ablative/insulating coating.
4. Dragon-warts.
5. ???
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/04/2019 06:45 pm
Post by: HVM on 03/04/2019 10:01 pm
Number 3.I’ll have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda.
+ extruudable SPAM
Post by: Lars-J on 03/04/2019 10:44 pm
And Cargo Dragon uses the same SPAM filler method - but just like Dragon 2, it is more or less visible depending on light conditions:Number 3.I’ll have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda.
+ extruudable SPAM
And no, SPAM is not a joke, that is the name of the side-wall external insulation layer - SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material. (unless I have the abbreviation wrong)
Post by: RoboGoofers on 03/05/2019 03:25 pm
A good view of nose cone open.What are the yellow patches on the inside of the nose cone? I was guessing COB LEDs but they didn't light during docking.
Post by: w9gb on 03/05/2019 04:04 pm
Quote from: eriblo
Just to clarify: The capsule should pass within minutes of the ISS following the same ground track but will of course be much lower on the horizon, guesstimating about 1/4 the visibility radius unless someone knows better...Based on current ISS orbit, it will pass over splashdown area 2-3 minutes before Crew Dragon.
At Splashdown (8:45 AM EST) on March 8th, ISS will be just off the east coast of Puerto Rico.
Pacific Northwest (Vancouver, Seattle, Calgary) should have ISS/Crew Dragon visibility, before sunrise.
—
The ISS ground track on March 8th will pass over (times for Zenith of pass)
Sioux Falls, SD (7:34 CST); Burlington, IA; Springfield, IL (7:36 CST);
Knoxville, TN (8:38 EST); Columbia, SC before Atlantic Ocean off Florida coast.
Look for Crew Dragon following about 2 minutes after ISS pass.
Post by: crandles57 on 03/05/2019 11:02 pm
Is it just me or does booster look bent on this image from
[https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/1102924187067396096]
Post by: HVM on 03/05/2019 11:21 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB-DJawiCAs
No bending...
Post by: punder on 03/05/2019 11:24 pm
And no, SPAM is not a joke, that is the name of the side-wall external insulation layer - SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material. (unless I have the abbreviation wrong)
Oh it is most certainly a joke from SpaceX! They picked the acronym very carefully. 8)
Post by: CraigLieb on 03/06/2019 12:36 am
Was there any resolution to the Dragon cabin temperature concerns?Question from the update thread ..
answer is obvious... the zero-g indicator is the Earth.
So... Global warming !
Post by: gtae07 on 03/06/2019 09:03 am
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 03/06/2019 11:42 am
Post by: Yellowstone10 on 03/06/2019 12:23 pm
I wonder if the "zero g indicator" is going to come back down on the Dragon. Based on all of the pictures in the orbital ops update thread, it looks to have been adopted by the crew as their new mascot.
McClain referred to "[Earth's] busy week on @Space_Station" in a tweet, so I think it's coming back on Friday.
Post by: joncz on 03/06/2019 12:34 pm
In one of the various threads I saw a reentry path that looks to go offshore and pass a little east of Savannah. It’ll be morning and looking into the sun, but weather looks ok-ish for Friday and I actually have a decent view to the east from the building I work in. Is there a realistic chance of seeing a reentry trail this late or are we in “supersonic but no plasma trail” territory? I suspect the latter :-\
I asked yesterday - https://twitter.com/JonCzerwinski/status/1103106467027185665 - waiting to see if I get any response.
Post by: Spindog on 03/06/2019 12:52 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D05frkNWkAAOJ9g.jpg)I think it's an optical illusion caused by the angle of the unscorched white area that was covered by the landing leg to the left. Made me look several times too.
Is it just me or does booster look bent on this image from
[https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/1102924187067396096]
Post by: AstroMickey on 03/06/2019 01:43 pm
Post by: mlindner on 03/06/2019 01:58 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D05frkNWkAAOJ9g.jpg)I think it's an optical illusion caused by the angle of the unscorched white area that was covered by the landing leg to the left. Made me look several times too.
Is it just me or does booster look bent on this image from
[https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/1102924187067396096]
The booster doesn't look bent, but it's certainly leaning. I just measured it and it's leaning several degrees to the right.
Post by: Norm38 on 03/06/2019 03:55 pm
Reentry on Friday will be on a Descending Node, with Crew Dragon cutting across North America from Vancouver, British Columbia to Georgia in the pre- and post-dawn hours (depending on location) as she heads towards splashdown off the east coast of Florida.
Those under the flight path (the orange line in this image) might have the opportunity to see reentry if conditions are right.
(Image: GoISSWatch app)
I'm in Chicago. Anyone have an idea how far from that line it will be visible?
I guess it'll be shrinking as it descends. Passing below Chicago, maybe 20-30 miles up still? So 200-300 miles either side? Seems like it's way too far south for me to see anything.
Post by: HVM on 03/06/2019 05:42 pm
Crew is currently searching for the source of an odor, my guess is that it's dragon
Curious, what kind of odor?
Google translate:
"MOSCOW, March 5 - RIA News . After the arrival of the American unmanned spacecraft Dragon-2 on the ISS, the crew smelled alcohol, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti.
Isopropyl alcohol is a colorless liquid with a strong odor and a mild bitter taste. It is used in cosmetics, perfumery, household chemicals, medicine as an antiseptic. Moderately toxic, flammable. According to Russian GOST, the maximum permissible concentration of isopropyl alcohol vapor in the air is ten milligrams per cubic meter.
...
According to him, the concentration of alcohol in the atmosphere of the station on March 3 was about six milligrams per cubic meter, which did not exceed the permissible limits, but it could affect the operation of the equipment of the station. According to the instructions of the ground specialists, the crew switched on the air purification systems, as a result of which the alcohol concentration decreased to about two milligrams per cubic meter, the source added.
He noted that prior to the docking of the Dragon-2 spacecraft, the alcohol concentration in the atmosphere of the ISS was one tenth of a milligram per cubic meter."
https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html (https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html)
You must ventilate after cleaning...
Post by: eriblo on 03/06/2019 05:44 pm
I have not seen any Dragon landing profiles but if it had been a Soyus I think (after a quick look online) that some of the reentry would be visible from Chicago and it would still be about 50-60 km in altitude when passing the coastline. They both fly lifting reentries so there is some uncertainty (a Soyuz on a ballistic reentry can fall up to 600 km short, that would close to Columbia, SC...).Reentry on Friday will be on a Descending Node, with Crew Dragon cutting across North America from Vancouver, British Columbia to Georgia in the pre- and post-dawn hours (depending on location) as she heads towards splashdown off the east coast of Florida.
Those under the flight path (the orange line in this image) might have the opportunity to see reentry if conditions are right.
(Image: GoISSWatch app)
I'm in Chicago. Anyone have an idea how far from that line it will be visible?
I guess it'll be shrinking as it descends. Passing below Chicago, maybe 20-30 miles up still? So 200-300 miles either side? Seems like it's way too far south for me to see anything.
Post by: punder on 03/06/2019 05:57 pm
Crew is currently searching for the source of an odor, my guess is that it's dragon
Curious, what kind of odor?
Google translate:
"MOSCOW, March 5 - RIA News . After the arrival of the American unmanned spacecraft Dragon-2 on the ISS, the crew smelled alcohol, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti.
Isopropyl alcohol is a colorless liquid with a strong odor and a mild bitter taste. It is used in cosmetics, perfumery, household chemicals, medicine as an antiseptic. Moderately toxic, flammable. According to Russian GOST, the maximum permissible concentration of isopropyl alcohol vapor in the air is ten milligrams per cubic meter.
...
According to him, the concentration of alcohol in the atmosphere of the station on March 3 was about six milligrams per cubic meter, which did not exceed the permissible limits, but it could affect the operation of the equipment of the station. According to the instructions of the ground specialists, the crew switched on the air purification systems, as a result of which the alcohol concentration decreased to about two milligrams per cubic meter, the source added.
He noted that prior to the docking of the Dragon-2 spacecraft, the alcohol concentration in the atmosphere of the ISS was one tenth of a milligram per cubic meter."
https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html (https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html)
You must ventilate after cleaning...
Punder translate: SpaceX sucks! We hate them! (sob) Elon Musk is a BIG FAT MEANIE!!!
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/06/2019 06:06 pm
I have not seen any Dragon landing profiles but if it had been a Soyus I think (after a quick look online) that some of the reentry would be visible from Chicago and it would still be about 50-60 km in altitude when passing the coastline. They both fly lifting reentries so there is some uncertainty (a Soyuz on a ballistic reentry can fall up to 600 km short, that would close to Columbia, SC...).Reentry on Friday will be on a Descending Node, with Crew Dragon cutting across North America from Vancouver, British Columbia to Georgia in the pre- and post-dawn hours (depending on location) as she heads towards splashdown off the east coast of Florida.
Those under the flight path (the orange line in this image) might have the opportunity to see reentry if conditions are right.
(Image: GoISSWatch app)
I'm in Chicago. Anyone have an idea how far from that line it will be visible?
I guess it'll be shrinking as it descends. Passing below Chicago, maybe 20-30 miles up still? So 200-300 miles either side? Seems like it's way too far south for me to see anything.
You won't be able to see reentry from Chicago. Hang tight, though. I'm gathering it all together to post a "here's where you might be able to see the reentry and if you can't but live along the ground what you might expect" write up.
Post by: spacebleachers on 03/06/2019 06:26 pm
Crew is currently searching for the source of an odor, my guess is that it's dragon
Curious, what kind of odor?
Google translate:
"MOSCOW, March 5 - RIA News . After the arrival of the American unmanned spacecraft Dragon-2 on the ISS, the crew smelled alcohol, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti.
Isopropyl alcohol is a colorless liquid with a strong odor and a mild bitter taste. It is used in cosmetics, perfumery, household chemicals, medicine as an antiseptic. Moderately toxic, flammable. According to Russian GOST, the maximum permissible concentration of isopropyl alcohol vapor in the air is ten milligrams per cubic meter.
...
According to him, the concentration of alcohol in the atmosphere of the station on March 3 was about six milligrams per cubic meter, which did not exceed the permissible limits, but it could affect the operation of the equipment of the station. According to the instructions of the ground specialists, the crew switched on the air purification systems, as a result of which the alcohol concentration decreased to about two milligrams per cubic meter, the source added.
He noted that prior to the docking of the Dragon-2 spacecraft, the alcohol concentration in the atmosphere of the ISS was one tenth of a milligram per cubic meter."
https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html (https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html)
You must ventilate after cleaning...
Punder translate: SpaceX sucks! We hate them! (sob) Elon Musk is a BIG FAT MEANIE!!!
I can’t find the article that discussed it, but this has been an issue with the Cargo Dragon missions too.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/06/2019 06:39 pm
Crew is currently searching for the source of an odor, my guess is that it's dragon
Curious, what kind of odor?
Google translate:
"MOSCOW, March 5 - RIA News . After the arrival of the American unmanned spacecraft Dragon-2 on the ISS, the crew smelled alcohol, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti.
Isopropyl alcohol is a colorless liquid with a strong odor and a mild bitter taste. It is used in cosmetics, perfumery, household chemicals, medicine as an antiseptic. Moderately toxic, flammable. According to Russian GOST, the maximum permissible concentration of isopropyl alcohol vapor in the air is ten milligrams per cubic meter.
...
According to him, the concentration of alcohol in the atmosphere of the station on March 3 was about six milligrams per cubic meter, which did not exceed the permissible limits, but it could affect the operation of the equipment of the station. According to the instructions of the ground specialists, the crew switched on the air purification systems, as a result of which the alcohol concentration decreased to about two milligrams per cubic meter, the source added.
He noted that prior to the docking of the Dragon-2 spacecraft, the alcohol concentration in the atmosphere of the ISS was one tenth of a milligram per cubic meter."
https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html (https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html)
You must ventilate after cleaning...
Punder translate: SpaceX sucks! We hate them! (sob) Elon Musk is a BIG FAT MEANIE!!!
I can’t find the article that discussed it, but this has been an issue with the Cargo Dragon missions too.
You're confusing this issue with the contamination issue on the EXTERIOR of the ISS when Cargo Dragons have arrived. This is on the INTERIOR.
Post by: schaban on 03/06/2019 06:48 pm
Crew is currently searching for the source of an odor, my guess is that it's dragon
Curious, what kind of odor?
https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html (https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html)
You must ventilate after cleaning...
I think it is fake news. Russian norms are for constant 8 hours/day concentrations. I found following in https://www.nap.edu/read/5170/chapter/15#362 :
TABLE 11-3 Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations
Duration ppm mg/m3 Target Toxicity
1 h 400 1000 CNS depression, irritation
24 h 100 240 CNS depression, irritation, hepatoxicity
7 d 60 150 CNS depression, irritation, hepatoxicity
30 d 60 150 CNS depression, irritation, peripheral nerve damage
180 d 60 150 CNS depression, irritation
6 mg/m3 is nowhere near any dangerous levels.
Post by: spacebleachers on 03/06/2019 07:17 pm
Crew is currently searching for the source of an odor, my guess is that it's dragon
Curious, what kind of odor?
Google translate:
"MOSCOW, March 5 - RIA News . After the arrival of the American unmanned spacecraft Dragon-2 on the ISS, the crew smelled alcohol, a source in the Russian rocket and space industry told RIA Novosti.
Isopropyl alcohol is a colorless liquid with a strong odor and a mild bitter taste. It is used in cosmetics, perfumery, household chemicals, medicine as an antiseptic. Moderately toxic, flammable. According to Russian GOST, the maximum permissible concentration of isopropyl alcohol vapor in the air is ten milligrams per cubic meter.
...
According to him, the concentration of alcohol in the atmosphere of the station on March 3 was about six milligrams per cubic meter, which did not exceed the permissible limits, but it could affect the operation of the equipment of the station. According to the instructions of the ground specialists, the crew switched on the air purification systems, as a result of which the alcohol concentration decreased to about two milligrams per cubic meter, the source added.
He noted that prior to the docking of the Dragon-2 spacecraft, the alcohol concentration in the atmosphere of the ISS was one tenth of a milligram per cubic meter."
https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html (https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html)
You must ventilate after cleaning...
Punder translate: SpaceX sucks! We hate them! (sob) Elon Musk is a BIG FAT MEANIE!!!
I can’t find the article that discussed it, but this has been an issue with the Cargo Dragon missions too.
You're confusing this issue with the contamination issue on the EXTERIOR of the ISS when Cargo Dragons have arrived. This is on the INTERIOR.
Yea, I was about to post an update and apologize. This is a link to that event:
https://www.wired.com/story/a-spacex-delivery-capsule-may-be-contaminating-the-iss/
Post by: SWGlassPit on 03/06/2019 08:40 pm
Crew is currently searching for the source of an odor, my guess is that it's dragon
Curious, what kind of odor?
https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html (https://ria.ru/20190305/1551566207.html)
You must ventilate after cleaning...
I think it is fake news. Russian norms are for constant 8 hours/day concentrations. I found following in https://www.nap.edu/read/5170/chapter/15#362 :
TABLE 11-3 Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations
Duration ppm mg/m3 Target Toxicity
1 h 400 1000 CNS depression, irritation
24 h 100 240 CNS depression, irritation, hepatoxicity
7 d 60 150 CNS depression, irritation, hepatoxicity
30 d 60 150 CNS depression, irritation, peripheral nerve damage
180 d 60 150 CNS depression, irritation
6 mg/m3 is nowhere near any dangerous levels.
Even though it's not toxic to crew, it does affect the behavior of the water purification system, as it appears in the condensate.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/06/2019 11:20 pm
Reentry on Friday will be on a Descending Node, with Crew Dragon cutting across North America from Vancouver, British Columbia to Georgia in the pre- and post-dawn hours (depending on location) as she heads towards splashdown off the east coast of Florida.
Those under the flight path (the orange line in this image) might have the opportunity to see reentry if conditions are right.
(Image: GoISSWatch app)
Is there a link to a higher-res version of this somewhere? It looks like I will be more or less directly beneath this path, though likely too far north (Tennessee) to see plasma.
It's also predicted to rain most of the day but still ...
Post by: joncz on 03/07/2019 12:29 pm
Reentry on Friday will be on a Descending Node, with Crew Dragon cutting across North America from Vancouver, British Columbia to Georgia in the pre- and post-dawn hours (depending on location) as she heads towards splashdown off the east coast of Florida.
Those under the flight path (the orange line in this image) might have the opportunity to see reentry if conditions are right.
(Image: GoISSWatch app)
Is there a link to a higher-res version of this somewhere? It looks like I will be more or less directly beneath this path, though likely too far north (Tennessee) to see plasma.
It's also predicted to rain most of the day but still ...
I use Heavens-Above. Put your location in, choose ISS - All passes and pick the Friday 0830ET pass; then click the Ground Track link.
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 03/07/2019 06:24 pm
I wish they had put something from the station (other than the planned cargo) in its place for the trip home.
Post by: Lar on 03/07/2019 07:02 pm
Based on the "EARTH STAYS" message in the orbital ops update thread, I guess ISS has a new mascot.Like the flag?
I wish they had put something from the station (other than the planned cargo) in its place for the trip home.
Have to wait for that one.
Post by: satcomopsuk on 03/07/2019 07:12 pm
Nav warning relating to the landing zones.
Post by: jcopella on 03/07/2019 07:31 pm
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/07/2019 08:08 pm
Post by: cppetrie on 03/07/2019 08:22 pm
Apologies if this is answered elsewhere as I haven't reviewed all 57 pages, but I'm curious about the aluminum-ish-looking blanking plate or cover that seems to be installed where I'd expect to see the Draco thrusters for the abort system. Is this a cover that will be ejected or is it a blanking plate for aero purposes that will be replaced with real installed Dracos in the next (crewed) increment, or .. something else?It’s just a reflective seal coating over the thermal protection material (PICA-X?) to keep water out of it. The bottom heatshield has the same coating. There are working Draco’s and SuperDracos on this capsule. The SuperDracos ports have a film over them that is blown off the first time they are used. Draco’s has the same. Check the pre-launch pictures as compared to on-orbit pictures, and you’ll see what I mean.
Post by: jcopella on 03/07/2019 09:05 pm
Apologies if this is answered elsewhere as I haven't reviewed all 57 pages, but I'm curious about the aluminum-ish-looking blanking plate or cover that seems to be installed where I'd expect to see the Draco thrusters for the abort system. Is this a cover that will be ejected or is it a blanking plate for aero purposes that will be replaced with real installed Dracos in the next (crewed) increment, or .. something else?It’s just a reflective seal coating over the thermal protection material (PICA-X?) to keep water out of it. The bottom heatshield has the same coating. There are working Draco’s and SuperDracos on this capsule. The SuperDracos ports have a film over them that is blown off the first time they are used. Draco’s has the same. Check the pre-launch pictures as compared to on-orbit pictures, and you’ll see what I mean.
Ah, so IOW it's Dragon butcher paper :D Thank you!
Post by: DatUser14 on 03/08/2019 01:44 am
Post by: jig on 03/08/2019 02:28 am
Thanks very much for everything. Missed the first closing hatch videos and can always rely on you all here.
:)
Post by: Asteroza on 03/08/2019 02:56 am
Post by: John Alan on 03/08/2019 03:00 am
https://twitter.com/Astro_DavidS/status/1103445230404231168
Post by: Lars-J on 03/08/2019 03:37 am
Latest article says there will be a Draco burn to physically separate from the IDA. Was that necessary for similar ports(APAS-95, etc) or is this unique to crew dragon and the SpaceX Docking System?
How else would they separate? Any push from the docking adapter would be very slight.
Usually there is a very slight burn to get some separation, and then a longer burn once outside the immediate vicinity.
Post by: Bogeyman on 03/08/2019 04:24 am
Post by: penguin44 on 03/08/2019 04:31 am
Post by: ngilmore on 03/08/2019 04:36 am
Latest article says there will be a Draco burn to physically separate from the IDA. Was that necessary for similar ports(APAS-95, etc) or is this unique to crew dragon and the SpaceX Docking System?
How else would they separate? Any push from the docking adapter would be very slight.
Usually there is a very slight burn to get some separation, and then a longer burn once outside the immediate vicinity.
From today's article:
Quote
Unlike the current Soyuz and Progress vehicles and the Space Shuttle of the past, Crew Dragon will not undock from the Station using springs to physically separate and push it away from the outpost.https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/03/eom-spacex-crew-dragons-inaugural-station/
Post by: Targeteer on 03/08/2019 06:53 am
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/08/2019 06:59 am
When was the last time an American human-rated spacecraft came down under parachutes? Splashed down? Was recovered?
Today’s events represent a milestone that probably hasn’t been achieved in the lifetimes of a large number of readers of this forum.
Pretty amazing...
Post by: CJ on 03/08/2019 07:17 am
So, being asked for historical context...
When was the last time an American human-rated spacecraft came down under parachutes? Splashed down? Was recovered?
Today’s events represent a milestone that probably hasn’t been achieved in the lifetimes of a large number of readers of this forum.
Pretty amazing...
Human rated... I can't think of a human-rated US spacecraft that wasn't manned coming down under the silk, so I'm going to have to go with the obvious (and therefor probably wrong) answer; the last manned flight before the Shuttle. Apollo-Soyuz, 1975.
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/08/2019 08:17 am
Post by: AbuSimbel on 03/08/2019 08:38 am
What about Orion in 2014?If we're down to this you could as well say why not Dragon in 2010...
Post by: WindnWar on 03/08/2019 08:38 am
What about Orion in 2014?
Since that Orion capsule lacked the life support system and several other systems, I don't think it actually qualifies to be human rated as you could not have put human in it. Crew Dragon as far as I am aware has all its systems.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/08/2019 09:01 am
Missed the coverage- has SpaceX closed the nosecone ??
Not yet
Post by: b.lorenz on 03/08/2019 10:05 am
Update thread says it is scheduled to happen after deorbit burn but before reentry. My question is: Does not this carry a slight risk of having problems with closing and securing the cone and not having time to resolve before entering atmosphere? Or are the sensors under it needed for navigation?Missed the coverage- has SpaceX closed the nosecone ??
Not yet
Post by: kevinof on 03/08/2019 10:12 am
Update thread says it is scheduled to happen after deorbit burn but before reentry. My question is: Does not this carry a slight risk of having problems with closing and securing the cone and not having time to resolve before entering atmosphere? Or are the sensors under it needed for navigation?Missed the coverage- has SpaceX closed the nosecone ??
Not yet
Post by: photonic on 03/08/2019 11:19 am
One issue might be that 4 of the thrusters can no longer be used, since they would covered by the nose cone. (At least that is what I understood from the live stream. This must be the 4 big holes you see around the docking adapter, but still within the area covered by the cone).Update thread says it is scheduled to happen after deorbit burn but before reentry. My question is: Does not this carry a slight risk of having problems with closing and securing the cone and not having time to resolve before entering atmosphere? Or are the sensors under it needed for navigation?Missed the coverage- has SpaceX closed the nosecone ??
Not yet
Post by: b.lorenz on 03/08/2019 11:42 am
The star tracker is located under the nosecone. I suspect (don't know) that if it doesn't close , they can still de-orbit and land. Having it closed protects the gear and hatch and would also stop any seawater intrusion.Update thread says it is scheduled to happen after deorbit burn but before reentry. My question is: Does not this carry a slight risk of having problems with closing and securing the cone and not having time to resolve before entering atmosphere? Or are the sensors under it needed for navigation?Missed the coverage- has SpaceX closed the nosecone ??
Not yet
I do not think Dragon can reenter with nosecone wide open. My concern is not that the backwards side gets damaged, but that the air resistance of the sideways-hanging nosecone causes a strong yaw moment and sends the spacecraft in a spin. But anyway, if it would cover the star-tracker, then they need to keep it open for orbital manouvering, and the closing mechanism is probably quite simple and robust.
Post by: WindnWar on 03/08/2019 11:48 am
Post by: hektor on 03/08/2019 12:09 pm
Post by: hektor on 03/08/2019 12:11 pm
Post by: hektor on 03/08/2019 12:24 pm
Post by: Rifleman on 03/08/2019 12:26 pm
Anybody on the ground path to tell us if a plasma trail is visible in the sky ?
It should be flying pretty close to overhead where I am currently located. I am outside looking, but its snowy here, and I doubt I will be able to see much.
Post by: Lar on 03/08/2019 12:37 pm
DM-2 is bringing back zero-G indicator ! (SpaceX call it 'Earthy')Well boo.
Post by: dodo on 03/08/2019 12:42 pm
Post by: joncz on 03/08/2019 12:49 pm
Maybe an old question, but I was wondering whether, in case of a parachute failure, the SD are ready to attempt a brown-pants splashdown, or if the idea was altogether abandoned.
Go here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47570.0
Post by: mikegi on 03/08/2019 12:49 pm
Post by: Lar on 03/08/2019 12:50 pm
<two splashdown pics, second one collapsed mains>Do the mains collapse like that on their own or because of the reefcutter, or both?
Post by: kevinof on 03/08/2019 12:51 pm
Did one chute end up covering the Dragon?
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/08/2019 12:51 pm
Did one chute end up covering the Dragon?
Looks that way, but just partially.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/08/2019 12:54 pm
Of course if the parachute covers the capsule and the capsule then sets sail, the chase ships find themselves in a sail regatta against the SS Dragon2 ;)
Edit: the pro side is, it really helps with parachute recovery, no risk of them sinking ;)
Post by: Joffan on 03/08/2019 01:01 pm
Looks like one parachute is draped around the back side of DragonYeah, I think the fast boat went up, had a look and a chat with the main boat and my guess is they're going in to check on everything carefully. Learning opportunity.
(and unveiled as I type :) )
Post by: clongton on 03/08/2019 01:03 pm
Post by: sfxtd on 03/08/2019 01:03 pm
I wonder if there is a reasonable modification to the rigging or aerodynamics that might mitigate that motion.
Post by: kevinof on 03/08/2019 01:05 pm
Not good that 1 chute covered Dragon. Potential to catch a wind and drag the spacecraft.
Post by: kessdawg on 03/08/2019 01:05 pm
Post by: JBF on 03/08/2019 01:07 pm
Not good that 1 chute covered Dragon. Potential to catch a wind and drag the spacecraft.That depends on if it's actually tangled under the capsule. Remember the mains are cut; so there is a good chance it would just blow off.
Post by: Joffan on 03/08/2019 01:07 pm
There was worry about the asymmetric backshell causing a spin during re-entry. Do we know if that was avoided?I didn't see any spin at the time of drogue chute deploy.
Post by: hektor on 03/08/2019 01:10 pm
Post by: yokem55 on 03/08/2019 01:11 pm
That ride under parachute looked rather nauseating. There was a pronounced pitch oscillation under the drogues and substantial "random" movement under the mains. It looks like a recipe to soil ones helmet.Yeah, I can understand the hand wringing about the chutes now. It's the piece that has to work, but obviously has a lot of difficult to model behaviors and interactions. I was worried all the chutes were going to tangle and foul themselves. Then, I'm not sure how you prevent one of the chutes from coming down on top of Dragon after spash down like we saw.
I wonder if there is a reasonable modification to the rigging or aerodynamics that might mitigate that motion.
Almost makes powered landing seem easier.
Post by: webdan on 03/08/2019 01:11 pm
Post by: punder on 03/08/2019 01:13 pm
Post by: A12 on 03/08/2019 01:14 pm
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/08/2019 01:16 pm
Also the crew inside cannot see outside with the chute over the windows. So it deprives the crew from information.
Yeah, its definitely an anomaly, but not a very critical one. And I think its not something that can be avoided with any multi-parachute system. The chance of it is basically down to the wind and the number of parachute. You can't do more than cut them, which apparently happened correctly.
Also they managed to "fix" it very very quickly, so as far as procedures is concerned it looks all great to me.
It could be dangerous if it happens in bad sea state, the capsule is leaking and running full of water, the crew needs to leave in a hurry, and then they get caught in an entangled parachute and lines and pulled under.
That's kinda the worst case scenario, but I don't think this is likely to happen in stronger winds as the chute would just be blown off.
Post by: punder on 03/08/2019 01:22 pm
Or maybe things that were supposed to come off. Covers or hatches.
Ninja'd by DecoLV during edit!
Post by: DecoLV on 03/08/2019 01:24 pm
Couple of bits that flew off during reentry... Probably just little particles of TPS or paint, but for obvious reasons I had a bit of a jolt. Things that cannot be unseen...
Drogue doors coming off, mostly likely.
Post by: kevinof on 03/08/2019 01:25 pm
Couple of bits that flew off during reentry... Probably just little particles of TPS or paint, but for obvious reasons I had a bit of a jolt. Things that cannot be unseen...
Post by: kevinof on 03/08/2019 01:25 pm
Couple of bits that flew off during reentry... Probably just little particles of TPS or paint, but for obvious reasons I had a bit of a jolt. Things that cannot be unseen...
Drogue doors coming off, mostly likely.
Post by: punder on 03/08/2019 01:32 pm
No. was way before that.Couple of bits that flew off during reentry... Probably just little particles of TPS or paint, but for obvious reasons I had a bit of a jolt. Things that cannot be unseen...
Drogue doors coming off, mostly likely.
Hard to tell, the IR made everything glow even after reentry proper. In any case, good outcome.
Am I allowed to say CONGRATS SPACEX AND NASA!! ? :D
Edit, stupid autocorrect...
Post by: EspenU on 03/08/2019 01:40 pm
Post by: punder on 03/08/2019 01:45 pm
Post by: kevinof on 03/08/2019 01:47 pm
Wasn't there a NASA requirement for recovery within 1 hour after splashdown? Only 5 min left of that deadline...
Post by: clongton on 03/08/2019 01:50 pm
Post by: clongton on 03/08/2019 01:52 pm
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/08/2019 01:52 pm
Post by: hektor on 03/08/2019 01:54 pm
Post by: hektor on 03/08/2019 01:56 pm
Dragon is in the nest. Wow, looks pretty scorched! It's being described as looking like a toasted marshmallow.
That it is painted white in the first place does not help. If it was brownish like the Soyuz it would be less obvious.
Post by: clongton on 03/08/2019 01:59 pm
Post by: kevinof on 03/08/2019 02:02 pm
Post by: kessdawg on 03/08/2019 02:03 pm
SpaceX: "A lovely toasted marshmallow"... ;D
Still better than "clean micro-Gs" lol
Post by: punder on 03/08/2019 02:04 pm
So if it would have been a crewed mission it would have been about 75 min from splashdown to crew egress ?
Chute-drape, and they were probably super cautious for this one. They will get faster I bet.
Everything on that "mild sea state" is bobbing like a cork though. Too bad NASA pulled the football on SpaceX propulsive landing.
Post by: lcs on 03/08/2019 02:04 pm
Post by: DecoLV on 03/08/2019 02:05 pm
Well that was one hell of a week. Way to go Space X (and Nasa). Job well done.
That was incredible; you couldn't ask for anything more. It just seemed like this mission was never going to get off the ground...it finally did! :)
Post by: Doesitfloat on 03/08/2019 02:08 pm
So if it would have been a crewed mission it would have been about 75 min from splashdown to crew egress ?It was a Demo mission. No one was on board.
The following would be different if people were on board.
1) They would not have waited 6 hours after docking to the ISS to open the hatch.
2) Dragon would not have remained on the ISS 14 hours after hatches closed.
3) Dragon crew would not remain in Dragon 75 after splashdown.
Demo mission.
No one on board.
Post by: vanoord on 03/08/2019 02:09 pm
So if it would have been a crewed mission it would have been about 75 min from splashdown to crew egress ?
Chute-drape, and they were probably super cautious for this one. They will get faster I bet.
Everything on that "mild sea state" is bobbing like a cork though. Too bad NASA pulled the football on SpaceX propulsive landing.
Mild sea state but there's enough ocean swell to make it more interesting - that might change if they're closer in to the coast, but the waves get shorter and taller in shallower water.
Post by: abaddon on 03/08/2019 02:11 pm
Imagine if these folks had to be in zero gee for a prolonged period, I can't imagine how they would deal with that!
Post by: punder on 03/08/2019 02:16 pm
The hand-wringing over some really very mild motion on the decent here is... well, typical.
Imagine if these folks had to be in zero gee for a prolonged period, I can't imagine how they would deal with that!
To me it looked good under the chutes. It's watching the ocean motion that makes me queasy.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/08/2019 02:32 pm
Post by: kevinof on 03/08/2019 02:35 pm
The hand-wringing over some really very mild motion on the decent here is... well, typical.
Imagine if these folks had to be in zero gee for a prolonged period, I can't imagine how they would deal with that!
To me it looked good under the chutes. It's watching the ocean motion that makes me queasy.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/08/2019 02:41 pm
People outside us space geeks are taking notice.
And the BFH base rolled to the pad in Boca Chica today too - a great day for SpaceX!
Post by: mn on 03/08/2019 02:52 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsIkeFaC1vg
Can someone please explain what we are seeing in this video.
a: From where is this being taken?
b: There is a small square floating around the screen, mostly white but turning red at some points.
c: The circle target in the lower left, with an x floating around.
TIA
Post by: king1999 on 03/08/2019 02:54 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsIkeFaC1vg
Can someone please explain what we are seeing in this video.
a: From where is this being taken?
b: There is a small square floating around the screen, mostly white but turning red at some points.
c: The circle target in the lower left, with an x floating around.
TIA
If you listened, it said that it was taken from a NASA plane in the recovery zone.
Post by: kevinof on 03/08/2019 02:55 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsIkeFaC1vg
Can someone please explain what we are seeing in this video.
a: From where is this being taken?
b: There is a small square floating around the screen, mostly white but turning red at some points.
c: The circle target in the lower left, with an x floating around.
TIA
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/08/2019 02:59 pm
https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/aircraft/WB-57_-_JSC
Post by: mn on 03/08/2019 03:02 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsIkeFaC1vg
Can someone please explain what we are seeing in this video.
a: From where is this being taken?
b: There is a small square floating around the screen, mostly white but turning red at some points.
c: The circle target in the lower left, with an x floating around.
TIA
If you listened, it said that it was taken from a NASA plane in the recovery zone.
I'm so used to watching these things without audio, I forgot there's audio ;)
Thanks
Edit: and to those who did listen, do they explain any of the data being shown?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 03/08/2019 03:09 pm
Post by: Spacenick on 03/08/2019 03:09 pm
Been bobbing in the water for an hour now. I imagine any crew that would be aboard after months in microgravity might be feeling pretty damn queasy by now.
I wonder if staying in microgravity might actually inhibit sea sickness at least to a degree. According to the following ESA video astronauts get really resistant to disorientation nausea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnLShiJ-t4
This is explained with the brain basically concluding after a few days that its inner ear gyroscope is basically useless and ignoring it. So I'd think that they might actually be less affected.
Post by: docmordrid on 03/08/2019 03:19 pm
The hand-wringing over some really very mild motion on the decent here is... well, typical.
>
And silly.
4 words: Cedar Point Steel Vengeance
Post by: clongton on 03/08/2019 03:19 pm
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/08/2019 03:27 pm
Post by: clongton on 03/08/2019 03:28 pm
Been bobbing in the water for an hour now. I imagine any crew that would be aboard after months in microgravity might be feeling pretty damn queasy by now.
I wonder if staying in microgravity might actually inhibit sea sickness at least to a degree. According to the following ESA video astronauts get really resistant to disorientation nausea.
<snip> ... </snip>
This is explained with the brain basically concluding after a few days that its inner ear gyroscope is basically useless and ignoring it. So I'd think that they might actually be less affected.
Interesting experiment. But he is actually IN microgravity while doing that. A returning Dragon crew on the other hand will be in normal gravity experiencing the up and down motion of bobbing on ocean swells. That usually makes people ill who are not used to it.
Post by: Spacenick on 03/08/2019 03:28 pm
I seem to recall that the Egress Hatch is at the Crew's feet but can't put my finger on any photos that show the interior arrangement. If that's true then because the parachutes are anchored directly above the hatch, wouldn't the crew be in a head-down position the entire time they are under parachute? Does anyone have an interior shot of the seats and hatch?This photo in Elon's tweet from the hatch opening is pretty instructive
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1102194489500753921
so you see the astronauts arm coming through the hatch in the "front" of the vehicle. To Ripley's feet there is two windows and between them is the sideways hatch that they ingress and egress once inside the atmosphere. So when bobbing in the see the picture is basically in normal orientation. To the right there is the main hatch that's pointing a bit upwards and you may be able to see the sea through the windows.
Post by: Spacenick on 03/08/2019 03:34 pm
My idea was that since they were in microgravity just minutes before their brain might still not trust the inner ear. Then again one could just ask one of the Apollo astronauts.Been bobbing in the water for an hour now. I imagine any crew that would be aboard after months in microgravity might be feeling pretty damn queasy by now.
I wonder if staying in microgravity might actually inhibit sea sickness at least to a degree. According to the following ESA video astronauts get really resistant to disorientation nausea.
<snip> ... </snip>
This is explained with the brain basically concluding after a few days that its inner ear gyroscope is basically useless and ignoring it. So I'd think that they might actually be less affected.
Interesting experiment. But he is actually IN microgravity while doing that. A returning Dragon crew on the other hand will be in normal gravity experiencing the up and down motion of bobbing on ocean swells. That usually makes people ill who are not used to it.
Post by: punder on 03/08/2019 03:38 pm
Do we know of ANY anomalies on this flight? It seems that it performed completely perfectly at every step. No launch delays, no errors on approach, perfect reentry and landing, etc. That is an incredible achievement for the first flight of a vehicle like this.
The chute-drape will require about 6 months of analysis and corrective action. I'd add the /s but... ;)
Post by: abaddon on 03/08/2019 03:38 pm
The human body takes time to adapt as per bolded above. I don't believe these adaptations immediately revert the moment there's gravity. That probably makes walking tricky for a while...My idea was that since they were in microgravity just minutes before their brain might still not trust the inner ear. Then again one could just ask one of the Apollo astronauts.Been bobbing in the water for an hour now. I imagine any crew that would be aboard after months in microgravity might be feeling pretty damn queasy by now.
I wonder if staying in microgravity might actually inhibit sea sickness at least to a degree. According to the following ESA video astronauts get really resistant to disorientation nausea.
<snip> ... </snip>
This is explained with the brain basically concluding after a few days that its inner ear gyroscope is basically useless and ignoring it. So I'd think that they might actually be less affected.
Interesting experiment. But he is actually IN microgravity while doing that. A returning Dragon crew on the other hand will be in normal gravity experiencing the up and down motion of bobbing on ocean swells. That usually makes people ill who are not used to it.
Post by: punder on 03/08/2019 03:42 pm
Then again one could just ask one of the Apollo astronauts.
Some of those guys barfed, didn't they? And I don't think they were in the water as long as Dragon crew will be.
Post by: clongton on 03/08/2019 03:42 pm
I seem to recall that the Egress Hatch is at the Crew's feet but can't put my finger on any photos that show the interior arrangement. If that's true then because the parachutes are anchored directly above the hatch, wouldn't the crew be in a head-down position the entire time they are under parachute? Does anyone have an interior shot of the seats and hatch?This photo in Elon's tweet from the hatch opening is pretty instructive
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1102194489500753921 (https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1102194489500753921)
so you see the astronauts arm coming through the hatch in the "front" of the vehicle. To Ripley's feet there is two windows and between them is the sideways hatch that they ingress and egress once inside the atmosphere. So when bobbing in the see the picture is basically in normal orientation. To the right there is the main hatch that's pointing a bit upwards and you may be able to see the sea through the windows.
So definitely Feet-Up and Head Down while descending under parachute.
Spacenick's photo shows the hatch at the crew's feet so in the photo below the crews' feet would be to the left side of the capsule (where the hatch and chute attach points are) and their heads to the right.
Post by: NX-0 on 03/08/2019 03:49 pm
Is this cause for any concern?
It really seemed like 3 would have done the job nicely, anyway.
Post by: Apollo-phill on 03/08/2019 03:57 pm
" We had the Right Trousers on today, Ripley !"😁
Congratulations to ALL t SpaceX/NASA on DM1
PhillParker
UK
Post by: Nehkara on 03/08/2019 04:05 pm
Then again one could just ask one of the Apollo astronauts.
Some of those guys barfed, didn't they? And I don't think they were in the water as long as Dragon crew will be.
https://twitter.com/m45sh/status/1104044000330375169
Apollo crews averaged 52.36 minutes in the water. Longest was 88 minutes, shortest was 37 minutes.
Crew Dragon was in the water for 67 minutes and their target for this mission was 60 minutes. I'm guessing over time that the average for Crew Dragon will be roughly similar to Apollo's average.
The parachutes seemed to do a lot of bumping into each other.
Is this cause for any concern?
It really seemed like 3 would have done the job nicely, anyway.
I checked previous drop tests... standard behaviour. Looked nominal.
Post by: clongton on 03/08/2019 04:11 pm
The parachutes seemed to do a lot of bumping into each other.
Is this cause for any concern?
It really seemed like 3 would have done the job nicely, anyway.
Three chutes would have been more than enough. But NASA insisted on adding a 4th chute, saying that it was needed as a safety backup for if one of the other 3 mains failed.
Here is where I have a problem with NASA wrt Dragon.
Dragon Crew has a dry mass of 9,525 kg and NASA says it needs 4 chutes for a safe descent.
Orion has a dry mass of 10,387 kg yet NASA says it only needs 3 chutes for a safe descent.
So if Dragon masses LESS than Orion, then why does it have to have more parachutes than Orion?
Maybe there is a valid reason for that but it escapes me.
Enquiring minds want to know.
Post by: deruch on 03/08/2019 04:12 pm
Do we know of ANY anomalies on this flight? It seems that it performed completely perfectly at every step. No launch delays, no errors on approach, perfect reentry and landing, etc. That is an incredible achievement for the first flight of a vehicle like this.2 potential ones. A thermal issue--Dragon was a few degrees warmer than expected. And the increased alcohol concentration noted in the ISS air (plus chemical smell) after hatches were opened. Assuming it came from Dragon, if it was spiking the ISS's air, even very modestly, then the concentrations inside the capsule prior to docking may be of higher concern. But regardless, they'll try to find what was causing it and work on a fix.
Post by: mn on 03/08/2019 04:17 pm
I checked previous drop tests... standard behaviour. Looked nominal.
Except that ASAP seems to think this 'standard behaviour' is not nominal.
And I think I'll duck and run for cover ;)
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 03/08/2019 04:21 pm
The seats appear to be adjusted depending on the circumstance (launch/orbit vs reentry).I seem to recall that the Egress Hatch is at the Crew's feet but can't put my finger on any photos that show the interior arrangement. If that's true then because the parachutes are anchored directly above the hatch, wouldn't the crew be in a head-down position the entire time they are under parachute? Does anyone have an interior shot of the seats and hatch?This photo in Elon's tweet from the hatch opening is pretty instructive
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1102194489500753921 (https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1102194489500753921)
so you see the astronauts arm coming through the hatch in the "front" of the vehicle. To Ripley's feet there is two windows and between them is the sideways hatch that they ingress and egress once inside the atmosphere. So when bobbing in the see the picture is basically in normal orientation. To the right there is the main hatch that's pointing a bit upwards and you may be able to see the sea through the windows.
So definitely Feet-Up and Head Down while descending under parachute.
Spacenick's photo shows the hatch at the crew's feet so in the photo below the crews' feet would be to the left side of the capsule (where the hatch and chute attach points are) and their heads to the right.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190308/22465fff3f3582b64200cfd898e3f574.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190308/08e4c8abd009f56130ed97986a6bffbb.jpg)
Post by: Helodriver on 03/08/2019 04:28 pm
Post by: clongton on 03/08/2019 04:28 pm
Do we know of ANY anomalies on this flight? It seems that it performed completely perfectly at every step. No launch delays, no errors on approach, perfect reentry and landing, etc. That is an incredible achievement for the first flight of a vehicle like this.2 potential ones. <snip>
2-1/2. One parachute landed over the top of the spacecraft. That's a potential problem depending on whether or not the crew needs to egress the spacecraft for some reason before the recovery boats can get there (onboard fire or leaking hatch for example). If the chute covers the hatch the crew could potentially become entangled with the shroud lines. Which raises another question: can they swim with the IVA suits on or would they need to shed them first?
I don't know that there is a solution to this (that's why the "1/2") because a cut chute dropping over the spacecraft has always been a potential occurrence on all spacecraft that return under parachute to a water landing. Dragon cuts the lines as soon as it senses that it is in the water. They could possibly cut them sooner but that would present potential additional problems of their own.
Post by: punder on 03/08/2019 04:36 pm
So the DM-1 Dragon was built with side windows located between the SuperDraco pods but they were covered up on the outside of the spacecraft with thermal protection material that stayed in place throughout the flight, leaving only two functional. The oval patch covering the window is visible on the departure pix. I'm curious if future flightworthy Crew Dragons will have those side windows deleted entirely or uncovered for crew viewing. I haven't heard this addressed elsewhere although it may have been.
They may have covered that window to make the light level constant for filming Ripley. Prevent bright sunlight pouring in at the wrong moment.
Post by: Helodriver on 03/08/2019 04:41 pm
Post by: DasBlinkenlight on 03/08/2019 04:53 pm
Early mockups have the control panel lowering down to the crew... the last demo showed the seats move up to the control panel instead... and as the above pictures show, the seats do indeed re position based on launch and landing. so the crew should not be in a feet up position.
The apollo era flights had inflatable life preservers so that in the event of an emergency egress, the crew did not have to doff their flight suits first. I assume (but have no proof) that a similar system will be in place for Dragon.
Post by: Joffan on 03/08/2019 05:01 pm
This is good from the point of view of rapid return to Earth. If Dragon only makes small departure burns, they've just tested re-entry from a relatively high orbit. The long wait we saw on DM-1 between departure and re-entry is likely not going to happen with crew on board.QuoteDragon Trunk cataloged as object 44064 in a 395 x 401 km orbit, only a bit below ISS which is in a 406 x 411 k m orbit. Looks like the Dep-3 and Dep-4 burns were quite small.
I assume that once Dragon is outside the approach zone, it is free to fire thrusters without considering effects on the ISS. So it could in principle go from ISS undocking to splashdown in under two hours.
Post by: edzieba on 03/08/2019 05:02 pm
I seem to recall that the Egress Hatch is at the Crew's feet but can't put my finger on any photos that show the interior arrangement. If that's true then because the parachutes are anchored directly above the hatch, wouldn't the crew be in a head-down position the entire time they are under parachute? Does anyone have an interior shot of the seats and hatch?The 'chutes are not anchored directly above the hatch.
Dragon hangs from the cute mounts just below the nose cap. The seats are (well) below the nose cap, and tilted to descent under the 'chutes - and more importantly, impact with the water - occurs with the pasengers sitting horizontally with head roughly level with the knees, in a very similar folded pose to Soyuz.
Post by: alang on 03/08/2019 05:17 pm
Been bobbing in the water for an hour now. I imagine any crew that would be aboard after months in microgravity might be feeling pretty damn queasy by now.
I wonder if staying in microgravity might actually inhibit sea sickness at least to a degree. According to the following ESA video astronauts get really resistant to disorientation nausea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnLShiJ-t4
This is explained with the brain basically concluding after a few days that its inner ear gyroscope is basically useless and ignoring it. So I'd think that they might actually be less affected.
Decades ago I attended a lecture on motion sickness. The claim was made that alcohol would change the density of fluid in the inner ear and suggest acceleration to the brain when none existed. In other words the claim was that alcohol in sufficient quantities would induce motion sickness.
If true then I quite seriously wonder if the traditional association between sailors and drunkenness was in part due to the ability to tolerate one of the several unpleasant side effects of booze.
Naturally I do not suggest the consumption of beer as a form of astronaut training.
Post by: abaddon on 03/08/2019 05:27 pm
So the DM-1 Dragon was built with side windows located between the SuperDraco pods but they were covered up on the outside of the spacecraft with thermal protection material that stayed in place throughout the flight, leaving only two functional. The oval patch covering the window is visible on the departure pix. I'm curious if future flightworthy Crew Dragons will have those side windows deleted entirely or uncovered for crew viewing. I haven't heard this addressed elsewhere although it may have been.@woods170 has indicated that DM-2 will have those windows present and accounted for. As noted above what you see on the inside of DM-1 is strictly cosmetic.
Post by: deruch on 03/08/2019 06:00 pm
Post by: Lars-J on 03/08/2019 06:26 pm
I seem to recall that the Egress Hatch is at the Crew's feet but can't put my finger on any photos that show the interior arrangement. If that's true then because the parachutes are anchored directly above the hatch, wouldn't the crew be in a head-down position the entire time they are under parachute? Does anyone have an interior shot of the seats and hatch?This photo in Elon's tweet from the hatch opening is pretty instructive
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1102194489500753921 (https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1102194489500753921)
so you see the astronauts arm coming through the hatch in the "front" of the vehicle. To Ripley's feet there is two windows and between them is the sideways hatch that they ingress and egress once inside the atmosphere. So when bobbing in the see the picture is basically in normal orientation. To the right there is the main hatch that's pointing a bit upwards and you may be able to see the sea through the windows.
So definitely Feet-Up and Head Down while descending under parachute.
Spacenick's photo shows the hatch at the crew's feet so in the photo below the crews' feet would be to the left side of the capsule (where the hatch and chute attach points are) and their heads to the right.
No, they are laying flat when hanging from the parachute.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/08/2019 07:02 pm
Post by: lrk on 03/08/2019 07:08 pm
I'm surprised that trunk jettison was prior to the de-orbit burn. Was that due to concerns over potential impacts with it during re-entry? And is that going to remain the standard timeline for return operations going forward? Should there be some unexpected issue with the deorbit burn, not having the solar panels and radiators would, I imagine, seriously limit the amount of time the capsule can remain healthy while a fix is worked on.
On the other hand, the trunk failing to seperate after de-orbit would present an even more critical problem, as the capsule would try to enter nose-first. I would guess that the risk of a thruster failure between separation and de-orbit is smaller than the risk of a separation failure, since the thruster performance would be monitored throughout the flight.
Post by: lonestriker on 03/08/2019 07:19 pm
I'm surprised that trunk jettison was prior to the de-orbit burn. Was that due to concerns over potential impacts with it during re-entry? And is that going to remain the standard timeline for return operations going forward? Should there be some unexpected issue with the deorbit burn, not having the solar panels and radiators would, I imagine, seriously limit the amount of time the capsule can remain healthy while a fix is worked on.
On the other hand, the trunk failing to seperate after de-orbit would present an even more critical problem, as the capsule would try to enter nose-first. I would guess that the risk of a thruster failure between separation and de-orbit is smaller than the risk of a separation failure, since the thruster performance would be monitored throughout the flight.
Someone mentioned in the forums or Twitter that Dragon 2 could survive on batteries alone from launch until docking. So there's a lot more battery capacity than you think. People really should approach issues from the standpoint that they don't understand the choice that SpaceX made, rather than "there's a problem with the choice SpaceX made." It is rocket science and they are really good at it.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/08/2019 08:45 pm
However I am surprised they detached the trunk in such a high, almost circular orbit. It could take many months if not years for reentry, in the exact same plane of the station where it's gonna be an obstacle any future visiting vehicle will have to navigate around. At least its mass to area ratio isn't high, being a hollow cylinder.
IMHO a weird choice. Obviously you don't "deorbit" with the trunk attached, but lowering perigee to something under 200 km so it reenters more quickly would have made more sense intuitively. That of course is a procedure choice they might still make in the future.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/08/2019 09:16 pm
Post by: John Alan on 03/08/2019 09:22 pm
Leaving the trunk in such a high circular orbit was unwise....
Many of you know I'm in the "clean up you mess today" camp on rocket hardware left in orbit... >:(
However... ???
IF the "fluffy" nature of the truck results in the now tracked object coming down and then deorbiting faster then seems obvious to myself anyway... then we will have learned something of note.
Maybe they were hedging keeping as much prop available for this first reentry, and ditched the trunk to save as much as possible... in case Dragon uses RCS more then calculated during re-entry... ???
Post by: RDMM2081 on 03/08/2019 09:25 pm
Post by: Eerie on 03/08/2019 09:32 pm
Can anything interesting be done with a flying mass of solar panels in a relatively stable orbit?
It's uncontrollable, so no.
Post by: VoodooForce on 03/08/2019 09:57 pm
Post by: JEF_300 on 03/08/2019 09:58 pm
Can anything interesting be done with a flying mass of solar panels in a relatively stable orbit?
It's uncontrollable, so no.
I assumed he meant in the future. Using leftover Dragon 2 truck in a way sort of similar to the shuttle ET wet workshop proposals would be really neat if doable.
Post by: RobW on 03/08/2019 10:09 pm
Maybe leaving the trunk in a high orbit is just Musk backing his work on Starship, and planning to take advantage of it.
Post by: Roy_H on 03/08/2019 10:15 pm
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/08/2019 10:15 pm
However I am surprised they detached the trunk in such a high, almost circular orbit. It could take many months if not years for reentry, in the exact same plane of the station where it's gonna be an obstacle any future visiting vehicle will have to navigate around. At least its mass to area ratio isn't high, being a hollow cylinder.
The trunk is very "fluffy" ballistically speaking. It will deorbit itself relatively quickly.
Post by: ppb on 03/08/2019 10:30 pm
Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and the bobbing in the swells that folks have been commenting on would not exist with a crew Dream Chaser... Just sayin'... ;)Those things also wouldn't exist with Dragon propulsive landing---also just sayin' ;-)
Post by: obi-wan on 03/08/2019 10:31 pm
I'm surprised that trunk jettison was prior to the de-orbit burn. Was that due to concerns over potential impacts with it during re-entry? And is that going to remain the standard timeline for return operations going forward? Should there be some unexpected issue with the deorbit burn, not having the solar panels and radiators would, I imagine, seriously limit the amount of time the capsule can remain healthy while a fix is worked on.
The trunk by itself has a much lower ballistic coefficient than the crew capsule. Take a look at the ground track across the U.S. - if it deorbits with the capsule aiming at landing just offshore, the trunk is going to land somewhere in the U.S. mainland. There was something a while back about landing on an ascending node so the capsule lands in the Atlantic and the trunk lands in the Gulf of Mexico - but that's pretty congested with boats and oil platforms. At space station inclination, you have a higher chance of landing in an ocean or empty land on an uncontrolled entry.
Post by: andylander on 03/08/2019 10:38 pm
Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and
Not sure what monkey motion is but I saw the capsule being EXTREMELY stable under the chutes - no pendulum motion and no spin at all. In general more chutes make the capsule more stable and I think the lateral sliding that the canopies were doing was by design - canopies drift around, capsule remains stable.
I agree about the bobbing in the ocean though, that doesn't look like much fun. The relatively tall Dragon looks like it is pitching over a lot more with each wave than the much more squat Apollo capsules, because of it's relative height. I wonder if hey considered an inflatable donut for Dragon like the Apollo capsule had?
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/08/2019 10:44 pm
Agreed, but that was SpaceX's task to prove unequivocally to NASA... I never commented on what we saw (others did) down to splashdown as it performed as expected for a capsule vehicle. I'm pleased with the outstanding results of the mission!Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and the bobbing in the swells that folks have been commenting on would not exist with a crew Dream Chaser... Just sayin'... ;)Those things also wouldn't exist with Dragon propulsive landing---also just sayin' ;-)
Post by: freddo411 on 03/08/2019 11:02 pm
Also, I'd like to see what things are done during the recovery.
Interesting to note that 5 of the apollo capsules ended up inverted in the water:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-40_Entry_Splashdown_and_Recovery.htm?fbclid=IwAR1JAzUIgqBnEpZwS68P8dJfTj3Gg45ODznkcLtPhdWv6AL8BYaUhURs0Es
I'm disappointed that NASA wouldn't let SpaceX develop its preferred landing methodology ... which would not have any of these complications and potential dangers. That being said, it appears to be no more or less troublesome than mercury, gemini, and apollo.
Post by: abaddon on 03/08/2019 11:02 pm
Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and the bobbing in the swells that folks have been commenting on would not exist with a crew Dream Chaser... Just sayin'... ;)One can always imagine how much superior something that doesn't exist is to something that does.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/08/2019 11:12 pm
And if man were meant to fly he'd have wings... Failure of imagination...Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and the bobbing in the swells that folks have been commenting on would not exist with a crew Dream Chaser... Just sayin'... ;)One can always imagine how much superior something that doesn't exist is to something that does.
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 03/08/2019 11:47 pm
I'm a bit amazed that people think that a parachute covering the capsule is a critical flaw. That's just the luck of the draw when dealing with parachutes like this. For any round parachute there is a wind direction that could push it on top of the capsule or jumper.Soyuz runs into the same problem occasionally. Of course that’s on the ground, not water. This event has been planned for, it will be studied and changes may or may not be made. Looked exactly like I thought it would, similar to Apollo. Well done Elon and all involved, a mostly perfect first attempt. Brilliant!
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/09/2019 12:39 am
Anyone got a link to the video of the sea recovery ops? The vids I watched show the fast boats approaching ; then it cuts off. I'm wondering if it takes 2 minutes or 10 minutes to get to the capsule.From yg in the update thread:
Also, I'd like to see what things are done during the recovery.
Interesting to note that 5 of the apollo capsules ended up inverted in the water:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-40_Entry_Splashdown_and_Recovery.htm?fbclid=IwAR1JAzUIgqBnEpZwS68P8dJfTj3Gg45ODznkcLtPhdWv6AL8BYaUhURs0Es
I'm disappointed that NASA wouldn't let SpaceX develop its preferred landing methodology ... which would not have any of these complications and potential dangers. That being said, it appears to be no more or less troublesome than mercury, gemini, and apollo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aAe0GWIWGI
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/09/2019 01:21 am
Oscillation under the drogues that gets dampened out when the mains deploy... Could be "vortex shedding" which can occur with airflow around a 'blunt body". They'll look at the aero data and what Ripley felt... (see above video)Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and
Not sure what monkey motion is but I saw the capsule being EXTREMELY stable under the chutes - no pendulum motion and no spin at all. In general more chutes make the capsule more stable and I think the lateral sliding that the canopies were doing was by design - canopies drift around, capsule remains stable.
I agree about the bobbing in the ocean though, that doesn't look like much fun. The relatively tall Dragon looks like it is pitching over a lot more with each wave than the much more squat Apollo capsules, because of it's relative height. I wonder if hey considered an inflatable donut for Dragon like the Apollo capsule had?
Post by: punder on 03/09/2019 01:43 am
Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and
Not sure what monkey motion is but I saw the capsule being EXTREMELY stable under the chutes - no pendulum motion and no spin at all. In general more chutes make the capsule more stable and I think the lateral sliding that the canopies were doing was by design - canopies drift around, capsule remains stable.
I agree about the bobbing in the ocean though, that doesn't look like much fun. The relatively tall Dragon looks like it is pitching over a lot more with each wave than the much more squat Apollo capsules, because of it's relative height. I wonder if hey considered an inflatable donut for Dragon like the Apollo capsule had?
I joked that the DM-2 crew were now asking for a flotation collar.
The Navy astronauts might be fine, but the AF astronauts might be a little put out. On the other hand, what's a little puking compared to the privilege and honor of flying in space. I doubt the astronauts are going to care that much.
Post by: b0objunior on 03/09/2019 04:14 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhKFBW3S8Pg
Post by: crandles57 on 03/09/2019 10:55 am
Wondering if those fast boats could take an inflatable collar that could be attached around dragon to make climbing on safer. In choppier / bigger swell could perhaps it be possible to slowly tow dragon using that inflatable ring such that dragon in the wake of fast boat is a little calmer so working on outside of dragon to attach hoist ropes is easier. Perhaps they just position go searcher to put dragon is in lee of ship in such conditions?
Post by: ATPTourFan on 03/09/2019 01:07 pm
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/09/2019 01:41 pm
Remember that even with Cargo Dragon, if sea state and weather was unfavorable and unsafe for recovery crews, the departure from ISS would go to a contingency date.
Exactly. People seem to forget that shuttle returns were routinely delayed due to weather concerns at the landing sites. No big deal here at all. The only time recovery weather would be a concern at all would be an emergency station evacuation, and even then, if there was a hurricane in the recovery zone, SpaceX/NASA would put contingency plans in place to splashdown elsewhere, even if it required requesting DOD support for recovery or something.
Recovery weather is a non-issue for nominal operations.
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/09/2019 02:00 pm
Post by: Jcc on 03/09/2019 02:01 pm
The more accurate they are, the closer in the recovery ship can be, reducing the time to recover.
Post by: kevinof on 03/09/2019 02:19 pm
Was there any announcement or non-announced info on the accuracy of the splashdown location? We know the time of splashdown was right on the money, exactly as planned. That is a good sign that the models are correct.
The more accurate they are, the closer in the recovery ship can be, reducing the time to recover.
Post by: AndyH on 03/09/2019 02:40 pm
Was there any announcement or non-announced info on the accuracy of the splashdown location? We know the time of splashdown was right on the money, exactly as planned. That is a good sign that the models are correct.There is L2 info.
The more accurate they are, the closer in the recovery ship can be, reducing the time to recover.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46703.msg1919853#msg1919853 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46703.msg1919853#msg1919853)
(L2 rocks - and there are server hamsters to be fed. ;D)
Post by: Thorny on 03/09/2019 04:29 pm
http://www.live5news.com/2019/03/08/sonic-boom-reported-across-lowcountry-friday-morning/
Post by: Jcc on 03/09/2019 07:19 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1104090692215726080
Noticing that the coating (SPAM?) covering the black Superdraco bay is intact. If the covering on the Superdraco nozzles held up, they may have stayed dry, greatly facilitating refurbishment.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/09/2019 07:51 pm
Wonder how far can SpaceX divert a returning Dragon from orbit? In order to avoid bad weather in the original landing point. Not switching to the gulf of Mexico, just somewhere else on the Atlantic coast..
There's two things that come into play:
1. Orbital mechanics. The Dragon reenters in the same plane as the ISS, its path brings it down somewhere along a line that runs straight all across the ocean and in fact all around the planet. A minute more or less for the reentry burn translates to roughly 450 km further or less far along that trajectory. They can aim from close to short up thousands of miles downrange.
While the capsule orbits, the earth rotates under it, so if you wait an extra orbit or one orbit less, you can go east or west in steps of roughly 2500 km (equator crossing), by waiting 90 minutes or going 90 minutes earlier.
Now the orbit is inclined by roughly 51 degrees, so if you paint 51 degree orbital lines from the equator at 2500 km intervals and intersect them with the US east coast, then you get to a couple hundred kilometers between each intersection. So those are basically the points at the shore where they can easily come down without changing the reentry timing by more than a few hours.
Of course the constellation of intersections repeats a little bit different every day, so you get additional locations when you wait extra days.
2. Where can you get the ships in time. The recovery vessels are a lot slower than the capsule (obviously) and at sea can take several day to get from one of these locations to the next - unless you want to rely on local fisher boats. This is the more limiting factor.
So first, you need to look at the orbit/coast intersections for a given day.
Then you need to look at the weather report, your fleet status, find out where you can gather the recovery fleet safely.
Once you have the fleet in place, its relatively easy to make the capsule come down there. Unless something goes wrong with reentry, then you might end up a thousand miles off course. (Soyuz did that a few times ;) )
Post by: Comga on 03/09/2019 10:50 pm
Splashdown !
SpaceX have posted a higher-res version of splashdown on their website (attached).
Despite claims up-thread, one can see from the closeness of the base of Dragon to the horizon, this video was not shot from a plane at 18k ft as claimed.
From 18 kft, the horizon is over 250 km away.
Plus the video was more stable and from a more constant distance and angle than is possible from a moving plane.
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 03/09/2019 10:51 pm
Post by: DatUser14 on 03/09/2019 10:52 pm
Under the side hatch is an open hatch. This photo taken from NASA video shows water sloshing in the bottom of the compartment. I’d like to know what was in there and when did it open.thats the main parachute compartment.
Post by: rickl on 03/10/2019 01:53 am
Under the side hatch is an open hatch. This photo taken from NASA video shows water sloshing in the bottom of the compartment. I’d like to know what was in there and when did it open.thats the main parachute compartment.
I was pretty disgusted seeing seawater sloshing around in there.
I understand that NASA put the kibosh on SpaceX's idea of propulsive landings.
But I've also read that NASA wants new Crew Dragons for each flight.
That means that SpaceX could build up a stockpile of used Crew Dragons that could potentially be used for private missions. Could they be used for propulsive landing flight tests?
Post by: deruch on 03/10/2019 02:46 am
I was pretty disgusted seeing seawater sloshing around in there.Under the side hatch is an open hatch. This photo taken from NASA video shows water sloshing in the bottom of the compartment. I’d like to know what was in there and when did it open.thats the main parachute compartment.
I would imagine that the Dragon 2s are designed similar to the Dragon 1s in terms of reusability. If so, then flooding in the parachute compartment is at least partially a benefit. Here's a comment on /r/SpaceX from a former SpaceX intern who was working on reusability improvements to Dragon 1 capsules during his time there: Direct link (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4tdptq/spacex_crs9_postlaunch_press_conference/d5gyjek?context=5)
Quote from: deleted user account
They also have plans to reuse the majority of the service section. When I interned there, we were working on making adjustments so that the service section would not flood with ocean water during the landings. This mainly included sealing the service section, installing a bilge pump to remove water that leaked in, and installing an ocean heat exchanger.
As you may know, when Dragon is in space, it cools itself using a radiator located on the trunk. Before reentry, the trunk is jettisoned and then Dragon has no way to cool itself. During reentry, the heat from the electronics in Dragon is building up inside of Dragon's thermal control system (TCS) loops which are located in the service section. Previously, the service section would flood with ocean water and the heat would flow from the TCS lines into the water. But now that the service section is sealed the only area that floods with water is the parachute bay, so we installed an ocean heat exchanger there. The ocean heat exchanger is essentially just as much surface area of tubes that could fit in the space we were given.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/10/2019 02:56 am
Splashdown !
SpaceX have posted a higher-res version of splashdown on their website (attached).
Despite claims up-thread, one can see from the closeness of the base of Dragon to the horizon, this video was not shot from a plane at 18k ft as claimed.
From 18 kft, the horizon is over 250 km away.
Plus the video was more stable and from a more constant distance and angle than is possible from a moving plane.
That last video segment with the actual splashdown seemed to me very much like it was being shot from one of the recovery vessels. The IR tracking video segments from plasma trail through drogue chute deployment were clearly shot by a stabilized camera mounted on the NASA WB-52 flying at roughly 18K feet, as the aircraft altitude was displayed in the upper right corner the whole time. ;)
Post by: joek on 03/10/2019 03:05 am
That means that SpaceX could build up a stockpile of used Crew Dragons that could potentially be used for private missions. Could they be used for propulsive landing flight tests?More likely for cargo (if they use refurb Dragons) as Dragon 2 (cargo version) will be used for CRS-2.
Post by: hpras on 03/10/2019 03:06 am
I saw the 18.000.... I thought it might be meters.Splashdown !
SpaceX have posted a higher-res version of splashdown on their website (attached).
Despite claims up-thread, one can see from the closeness of the base of Dragon to the horizon, this video was not shot from a plane at 18k ft as claimed.
From 18 kft, the horizon is over 250 km away.
Plus the video was more stable and from a more constant distance and angle than is possible from a moving plane.
That last video segment with the actual splashdown seemed to me very much like it was being shot from one of the recovery vessels. The IR tracking video segments from plasma trail through drogue chute deployment were clearly shot by a stabilized camera mounted on the NASA WB-52 flying at roughly 18K feet, as the aircraft altitude was displayed in the upper right corner the whole time. ;)
Post by: Lars-J on 03/10/2019 03:40 am
Under the side hatch is an open hatch. This photo taken from NASA video shows water sloshing in the bottom of the compartment. I’d like to know what was in there and when did it open.thats the main parachute compartment.
I was pretty disgusted seeing seawater sloshing around in there.
Disgusted? Really? What did you expect?
Post by: tyrred on 03/10/2019 06:03 am
Splashdown !
SpaceX have posted a higher-res version of splashdown on their website (attached).
Despite claims up-thread, one can see from the closeness of the base of Dragon to the horizon, this video was not shot from a plane at 18k ft as claimed.
From 18 kft, the horizon is over 250 km away.
Plus the video was more stable and from a more constant distance and angle than is possible from a moving plane.
That last video segment with the actual splashdown seemed to me very much like it was being shot from one of the recovery vessels. The IR tracking video segments from plasma trail through drogue chute deployment were clearly shot by a stabilized camera mounted on the NASA WB-52 flying at roughly 18K feet, as the aircraft altitude was displayed in the upper right corner the whole time. ;)
Agreed, with minor nitpick... It was a NASA WB-57.
Post by: su27k on 03/10/2019 07:31 am
Photo Credit: Tom Cross
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 03/10/2019 08:53 am
That means that SpaceX could build up a stockpile of used Crew Dragons that could potentially be used for private missions. Could they be used for propulsive landing flight tests?
More likely for cargo (if they use refurb Dragons) as Dragon 2 (cargo version) will be used for CRS-2.
They could be used for propulsive landing flight tests, but they won't because Starship is the next big thing. Equipment from the Crew Dragon stockpile can probably be removed and reused (the seats, for instance).
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2019 09:54 am
If they want to do commercial HSF with Dragon 2 then propulsive landing is worth going for. Cost savings per mission are significant compared to new capsule, plus quicker turn around time between missions.
Post by: kevinof on 03/10/2019 10:09 am
So the D2 doesn't have legs or airbags (like Starliner). Question is - if they had to, could they do a land landing on the heatshield using chutes and then the SD's in the final metres?
Is the cost of a refurb of the shield less than a water landing refurb? If Starship gets delayed and they have commercial opportunities outside Nasa for D2 rides, maybe this would be worth investing in.
I don't think propulsive landing with crew is off table , just to difficult to prove to NASA in time they had. Cargo missions would be ideal for building confidence in it, problem is asking NASA to risk its precious science cargo.
If they want to do commercial HSF with Dragon 2 then propulsive landing is worth going for. Cost savings per mission are significant compared to new capsule, plus quicker turn around time between missions.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/10/2019 10:58 am
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/10/2019 11:10 am
Very thoughtful of them to have a bridge connecting the side door of the Dragon to the door of the astronaut quarter on the ship, not as cool looking as CAA but pretty useful for getting astronaut out of Dragon.
Think the bridge connection is more for a gurney than the crew. Since that hatch on the ship in the photo probably goes directly to the shipboard medical facility.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/10/2019 11:13 am
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/10/2019 01:08 pm
So the D2 doesn't have legs or airbags (like Starliner). Question is - if they had to, could they do a land landing on the heatshield using chutes and then the SD's in the final metres?
They certainly could. Although I doubt the heatshield would be of much use afterwards. It's not designed for mechanical point stress as would happen when landing on land. That likely wouldn't affect the rest of the capsule though, and if the heatshield needs to be replaced anyway, it doesn't matter.
Btw, starliner jettisons the heatshield before touchdown!
Post by: jerwah on 03/10/2019 01:45 pm
Btw, starliner jettisons the heatshield before touchdown!
Elon tweeted last night that propulsive landings of cargo "should be no problem"
We know there aren't any feet holes in the current heat shield design.
I've always felt that dropping the heat shield was a viable solution to the not wanting holes in the heatshield concern.
<rampant speculation warning>
One interpretation of Elon's tweet is that they still want to try and do cargo landings propulsively.
It would make sense that they don't want to have to create two different heat shield designs, (holes and no holes) therefore a jettisonable heat shield of the no holes design could be used on the cargo variants after refurbishment.
You could test this system with cargo return, water landings at first, with almost no additional risk to NASA (since they would be expecting water landings anyway)
</rampant speculation warning>
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/10/2019 02:22 pm
Agreed, with minor nitpick... It was a NASA WB-57.
Yep, typo.
Post by: freddo411 on 03/10/2019 04:40 pm
Btw, starliner jettisons the heatshield before touchdown!
Elon tweeted last night that propulsive landings of cargo "should be no problem"
We know there aren't any feet holes in the current heat shield design.
I've always felt that dropping the heat shield was a viable solution to the not wanting holes in the heatshield concern.
<rampant speculation warning>
One interpretation of Elon's tweet is that they still want to try and do cargo landings propulsively.
It would make sense that they don't want to have to create two different heat shield designs, (holes and no holes) therefore a jettisonable heat shield of the no holes design could be used on the cargo variants after refurbishment.
You could test this system with cargo return, water landings at first, with almost no additional risk to NASA (since they would be expecting water landings anyway)
</rampant speculation warning>
SpaceX could design legs that extended thought the sides of the capsule; breaking thru the pica-x only after reentry -- much like aperture to the parachute compartment and parachute cord pathways. No need to change the bottom heat shield at all.
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2019 05:01 pm
You mean deploy on outside of shield, similar to how NS does it.Btw, starliner jettisons the heatshield before touchdown!
Elon tweeted last night that propulsive landings of cargo "should be no problem"
We know there aren't any feet holes in the current heat shield design.
I've always felt that dropping the heat shield was a viable solution to the not wanting holes in the heatshield concern.
<rampant speculation warning>
One interpretation of Elon's tweet is that they still want to try and do cargo landings propulsively.
It would make sense that they don't want to have to create two different heat shield designs, (holes and no holes) therefore a jettisonable heat shield of the no holes design could be used on the cargo variants after refurbishment.
You could test this system with cargo return, water landings at first, with almost no additional risk to NASA (since they would be expecting water landings anyway)
</rampant speculation warning>
SpaceX could design legs that extended thought the sides of the capsule; breaking thru the pica-x only after reentry -- much like aperture to the parachute compartment and parachute cord pathways. No need to change the bottom heat shield at all.
Post by: freddo411 on 03/10/2019 05:37 pm
You mean deploy on outside of shield, similar to how NS does it.Yes, something akin to thatBtw, starliner jettisons the heatshield before touchdown!
Elon tweeted last night that propulsive landings of cargo "should be no problem"
We know there aren't any feet holes in the current heat shield design.
I've always felt that dropping the heat shield was a viable solution to the not wanting holes in the heatshield concern.
<rampant speculation warning>
One interpretation of Elon's tweet is that they still want to try and do cargo landings propulsively.
It would make sense that they don't want to have to create two different heat shield designs, (holes and no holes) therefore a jettisonable heat shield of the no holes design could be used on the cargo variants after refurbishment.
You could test this system with cargo return, water landings at first, with almost no additional risk to NASA (since they would be expecting water landings anyway)
</rampant speculation warning>
SpaceX could design legs that extended thought the sides of the capsule; breaking thru the pica-x only after reentry -- much like aperture to the parachute compartment and parachute cord pathways. No need to change the bottom heat shield at all.
Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/10/2019 06:38 pm
Have a good one,
Mike
Post by: deruch on 03/11/2019 12:23 am
Have we heard anything from NASA/SpaceX about the performance and interaction of the 4 chutes?
No. Probably will have to wait for the next ASAP meeting to see if it gets discussed. I don't think we're likely to get many specific statements from SpaceX or NASA on technical matters or systems performance beyond just, "Everything went well." Or generalizations about "few minor issues being worked through," etc.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/11/2019 01:11 am
Have we heard anything from NASA/SpaceX about the performance and interaction of the 4 chutes?
No. Probably will have to wait for the next ASAP meeting to see if it gets discussed. I don't think we're likely to get many specific statements from SpaceX or NASA on technical matters or systems performance beyond just, "Everything went well." Or generalizations about "few minor issues being worked through," etc.
The more chutes you add the more weird interactions between them you are liable to get. Even ASAP should realize that eventually.
Post by: joseph.a.navin on 03/11/2019 02:19 am
https://pfhstheroar.com/7144/news/other-news/the-dawn-of-a-new-era-in-human-spaceflight/# (https://pfhstheroar.com/7144/news/other-news/the-dawn-of-a-new-era-in-human-spaceflight/#)
Post by: freddo411 on 03/11/2019 04:11 am
Have we heard anything from NASA/SpaceX about the performance and interaction of the 4 chutes?
No. Probably will have to wait for the next ASAP meeting to see if it gets discussed. I don't think we're likely to get many specific statements from SpaceX or NASA on technical matters or systems performance beyond just, "Everything went well." Or generalizations about "few minor issues being worked through," etc.
The more chutes you add the more weird interactions between them you are liable to get. Even ASAP should realize that eventually.
I wonder if a one parachute, and landing rocket system would have the most predictable and safest landing. ASAP doesn't seem to object to that for Soyuz.
Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/11/2019 10:52 am
The more chutes you add the more weird interactions between them you are liable to get. Even ASAP should realize that eventually.
Agreed. Normally when you add redundancy you're adding complexity that can be fairly well characterized (weight, power, space, software,etc.), but with the chutes you have the aerodynamics as well.
IIRC, D2's chute system requires 2 for safe landing, Spx went to 3 for redundancy, and ASAP required a 4th for some reason. But, I can't remember what that reason was.
Thanks for the response, and have a good one,
Mike
Post by: freda on 03/11/2019 11:48 am
Here is my completed DM-1 article which I talked about back in Jan or Feb! This one took more research but I am overall very proud of it. Enjoy!A good read. I also see other space articles there by you. Thanks for posting and letting us see what you create. Write more.
https://pfhstheroar.com/7144/news/other-news/the-dawn-of-a-new-era-in-human-spaceflight/# (https://pfhstheroar.com/7144/news/other-news/the-dawn-of-a-new-era-in-human-spaceflight/#)
Post by: woods170 on 03/11/2019 11:57 am
The more chutes you add the more weird interactions between them you are liable to get. Even ASAP should realize that eventually.
Agreed. Normally when you add redundancy you're adding complexity that can be fairly well characterized (weight, power, space, software,etc.), but with the chutes you have the aerodynamics as well.
IIRC, D2's chute system requires 2 for safe landing, Spx went to 3 for redundancy, and ASAP required a 4th for some reason. But, I can't remember what that reason was.
Thanks for the response, and have a good one,
Mike
D2's chute system requires 2 for survivable landing. Safe landing requires 3 chutes.
Fourth chute was not required by ASAP. ASAP is not in a position to require/demand anything.
The fourth chute is there because NASA talked SpaceX out of propulsive landing. That had the undesired effect of Crew Dragon splashing down with a fairly substantial load of propellant still on-board (unused abort propellant that would otherwise have been spent during propulsive landing). The vehicle is thus a lot heavier than previously anticipated. To add extra redundancy to counter for this weight increase a fourth chute was added to the system, by SpaceX.
Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/11/2019 12:15 pm
D2's chute system requires 2 for survivable landing. Safe landing requires 3 chutes.
Sorry, that's my old job's language coming out. In the safety-critical environment, "safe" means "safe recovery of the crew", but damage to the vehicle may occur. "Operational" means, well, exactly how it sounds.
That said, it sounds to me that Crew Dragon requires 3 chutes for normal ops, but can have absorb one failure safely.
Thanks for the info, and have a good one,
Mike
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/11/2019 05:07 pm
Just curious, why don't they just dump the prop on entry?
The more chutes you add the more weird interactions between them you are liable to get. Even ASAP should realize that eventually.
Agreed. Normally when you add redundancy you're adding complexity that can be fairly well characterized (weight, power, space, software,etc.), but with the chutes you have the aerodynamics as well.
IIRC, D2's chute system requires 2 for safe landing, Spx went to 3 for redundancy, and ASAP required a 4th for some reason. But, I can't remember what that reason was.
Thanks for the response, and have a good one,
Mike
D2's chute system requires 2 for survivable landing. Safe landing requires 3 chutes.
Fourth chute was not required by ASAP. ASAP is not in a position to require/demand anything.
The fourth chute is there because NASA talked SpaceX out of propulsive landing. That had the undesired effect of Crew Dragon splashing down with a fairly substantial load of propellant still on-board (unused abort propellant). The vehicle is thus a lot heavier than previously anticipated. To add extra redundancy to counter for this weight increase a fourth chute was added to the system, by SpaceX.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/11/2019 05:10 pm
Just curious, why don't they just dump the prop on entry?
The more chutes you add the more weird interactions between them you are liable to get. Even ASAP should realize that eventually.
Agreed. Normally when you add redundancy you're adding complexity that can be fairly well characterized (weight, power, space, software,etc.), but with the chutes you have the aerodynamics as well.
IIRC, D2's chute system requires 2 for safe landing, Spx went to 3 for redundancy, and ASAP required a 4th for some reason. But, I can't remember what that reason was.
Thanks for the response, and have a good one,
Mike
D2's chute system requires 2 for survivable landing. Safe landing requires 3 chutes.
Fourth chute was not required by ASAP. ASAP is not in a position to require/demand anything.
The fourth chute is there because NASA talked SpaceX out of propulsive landing. That had the undesired effect of Crew Dragon splashing down with a fairly substantial load of propellant still on-board (unused abort propellant). The vehicle is thus a lot heavier than previously anticipated. To add extra redundancy to counter for this weight increase a fourth chute was added to the system, by SpaceX.
See ASTP and, for the nth time, if the conversation is focused on propulsive landing, there's a thread for that...
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/11/2019 05:11 pm
Wasn't even on my mind, but thanks anyway...Just curious, why don't they just dump the prop on entry?
The more chutes you add the more weird interactions between them you are liable to get. Even ASAP should realize that eventually.
Agreed. Normally when you add redundancy you're adding complexity that can be fairly well characterized (weight, power, space, software,etc.), but with the chutes you have the aerodynamics as well.
IIRC, D2's chute system requires 2 for safe landing, Spx went to 3 for redundancy, and ASAP required a 4th for some reason. But, I can't remember what that reason was.
Thanks for the response, and have a good one,
Mike
D2's chute system requires 2 for survivable landing. Safe landing requires 3 chutes.
Fourth chute was not required by ASAP. ASAP is not in a position to require/demand anything.
The fourth chute is there because NASA talked SpaceX out of propulsive landing. That had the undesired effect of Crew Dragon splashing down with a fairly substantial load of propellant still on-board (unused abort propellant). The vehicle is thus a lot heavier than previously anticipated. To add extra redundancy to counter for this weight increase a fourth chute was added to the system, by SpaceX.
See ASTP and, for the nth time, if the conversation is focused on propulsive landing, there's a thread for that...
Post by: woods170 on 03/11/2019 07:01 pm
Just curious, why don't they just dump the prop on entry?
The more chutes you add the more weird interactions between them you are liable to get. Even ASAP should realize that eventually.
Agreed. Normally when you add redundancy you're adding complexity that can be fairly well characterized (weight, power, space, software,etc.), but with the chutes you have the aerodynamics as well.
IIRC, D2's chute system requires 2 for safe landing, Spx went to 3 for redundancy, and ASAP required a 4th for some reason. But, I can't remember what that reason was.
Thanks for the response, and have a good one,
Mike
D2's chute system requires 2 for survivable landing. Safe landing requires 3 chutes.
Fourth chute was not required by ASAP. ASAP is not in a position to require/demand anything.
The fourth chute is there because NASA talked SpaceX out of propulsive landing. That had the undesired effect of Crew Dragon splashing down with a fairly substantial load of propellant still on-board (unused abort propellant). The vehicle is thus a lot heavier than previously anticipated. To add extra redundancy to counter for this weight increase a fourth chute was added to the system, by SpaceX.
See ASTP and, for the nth time, if the conversation is focused on propulsive landing, there's a thread for that...
Conversation is not focused on propulsive landing. Just pointing out that the fourth parachute is there exactly because there is no propulsive landing on the current design of Crew Dragon.
But I much appreciate your attempt to keep the discussion focused on aspects of DM-1.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/11/2019 08:25 pm
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/12/2019 07:42 am
Here is my completed DM-1 article which I talked about back in Jan or Feb! This one took more research but I am overall very proud of it. Enjoy!
https://pfhstheroar.com/7144/news/other-news/the-dawn-of-a-new-era-in-human-spaceflight/# (https://pfhstheroar.com/7144/news/other-news/the-dawn-of-a-new-era-in-human-spaceflight/#)
One minor correction. The abort booster will be B1048.4, as it will be on its fourth flight.
Post by: joseph.a.navin on 03/12/2019 12:49 pm
Post by: tyrred on 03/13/2019 04:16 am
Ok thanks for the correction, I will edit that one error if I can. If you read it was the article overall well rounded?
Great job! I only wish we had such reporting at my old high school...
Post by: tyrred on 03/13/2019 04:28 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZHP_at-DW4
Is there any further information on why there was an aluminum grid fin on this booster? Was the opposite grid fin also aluminum? I must admit, I didn't notice this on any earlier coverage.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/13/2019 08:15 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZHP_at-DW4
Is there any further information on why there was an aluminum grid fin on this booster? Was the opposite grid fin also aluminum? I must admit, I didn't notice this on any earlier coverage.
There were no aluminum grid fins on this one
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/13/2019 09:34 am
Ok thanks for the correction, I will edit that one error if I can. If you read it was the article overall well rounded?
Yes, it was well rounded and well written.
Post by: RotoSequence on 03/13/2019 09:50 am
Post by: woods170 on 03/13/2019 11:41 am
Isn't there supposed to be a post-mission briefing at some point?
When they actually start flying astronauts than yes.
Post by: meekGee on 03/13/2019 12:39 pm
Exactly.Have we heard anything from NASA/SpaceX about the performance and interaction of the 4 chutes?
No. Probably will have to wait for the next ASAP meeting to see if it gets discussed. I don't think we're likely to get many specific statements from SpaceX or NASA on technical matters or systems performance beyond just, "Everything went well." Or generalizations about "few minor issues being worked through," etc.
The more chutes you add the more weird interactions between them you are liable to get. Even ASAP should realize that eventually.
My thought was that three circles (think three pennies on a table) have one stable configuration.
Four circles can clearly do the rhombus dance we've seen.
Post by: flyright on 03/13/2019 01:33 pm
So what is the undersized grid fin made of? Is it a new design titanium fin?
Is there any further information on why there was an aluminum grid fin on this booster? Was the opposite grid fin also aluminum? I must admit, I didn't notice this on any earlier coverage.
There were no aluminum grid fins on this one
(or maybe it's an optical illusion that the fin in the foreground looks undersized?)
Post by: stcks on 03/13/2019 01:36 pm
So what is the undersized grid fin made of? Is it a new design titanium fin?
Huh? There was no undersized fin
Post by: flyright on 03/13/2019 01:45 pm
So what is the undersized grid fin made of? Is it a new design titanium fin?
Huh? There was no undersized fin
It was called out in the video that there was one undersized grid fin. I'm thinking now it was just the angle the picture was taken from that made the grid fin in the foreground look smaller than the the fins on the side.
Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/13/2019 01:47 pm
So what is the undersized grid fin made of? Is it a new design titanium fin?
Is there any further information on why there was an aluminum grid fin on this booster? Was the opposite grid fin also aluminum? I must admit, I didn't notice this on any earlier coverage.
There were no aluminum grid fins on this one
(or maybe it's an optical illusion that the fin in the foreground looks undersized?)
It certainly looked smaller in the photo. It took a while, but I finally found a similar photo where the titanium grid fins were emphasized (I don't know who to attribute it to so not duplicating it here), and the same illusion was in that image as well. So I'm marking it down as an illusion.
Have a good one,
Mike
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/13/2019 01:54 pm
Post by: leetdan on 03/13/2019 01:58 pm
Also, the Al fins had reinforcing ribs along their entire length. Ti is strong enough on its own to not need these.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/UdpKo.jpg)
Sourced from https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/22096/how-are-the-spacex-falcon-9-mod-3-and-mod-4-grid-fins-different
Post by: FlokiViking on 03/13/2019 02:09 pm
Great picture!
The dimpling caused by the heating on the side of the spacecraft is fascinating; I don't remember noticing that on Cargo Dragon.
Can someone describe what is happening there and implications for potential refurbishment impacts? Is it blistering due to moisture that naturally gets into the material (paint, insulation [PICA?] or whatever it is)? It looks like some of the blisters have peeled off leaving almost pure white underneath. Do those areas need to be replaced, or touched up, or could they refly as is on another orbital flight? (And I understand that this particular vehicle will fly the abort test, and there are no known current plans to refly NASA Dragon 2 spacecraft.)
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/13/2019 02:21 pm
Ref the picture of the hanging Dragon 2 showing the "toasty marshmallow" effects... (UPDATES thread)Different plasma flow field around Crew Dragon due to a different mold-line...
Great picture!
The dimpling caused by the heating on the side of the spacecraft is fascinating; I don't remember noticing that on Cargo Dragon.
Can someone describe what is happening there and implications for potential refurbishment impacts? Is it blistering due to moisture that naturally gets into the material (paint, insulation [PICA?] or whatever it is)? It looks like some of the blisters have peeled off leaving almost pure white underneath. Do those areas need to be replaced, or touched up, or could they refly as is on another orbital flight? (And I understand that this particular vehicle will fly the abort test, and there are no known current plans to refly NASA Dragon 2 spacecraft.)
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 03/13/2019 02:44 pm
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/13/2019 02:52 pm
Ref the picture of the hanging Dragon 2 showing the "toasty marshmallow" effects... (UPDATES thread)
Great picture!
The dimpling caused by the heating on the side of the spacecraft is fascinating; I don't remember noticing that on Cargo Dragon.
Can someone describe what is happening there and implications for potential refurbishment impacts? Is it blistering due to moisture that naturally gets into the material (paint, insulation [PICA?] or whatever it is)? It looks like some of the blisters have peeled off leaving almost pure white underneath. Do those areas need to be replaced, or touched up, or could they refly as is on another orbital flight? (And I understand that this particular vehicle will fly the abort test, and there are no known current plans to refly NASA Dragon 2 spacecraft.)
Please attach the picture to your post
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/13/2019 03:30 pm
Do we have any numbers as to the landing weight of the Dragon? Was there ballast added to simulate full crew at max weight plus any reserve for return packages from ISS? Was this close to the low-end with only Ripley on board and other test instruments? Was there much shear descending though various flight levels? Splashdown fps?
They said on the post-FRR briefing that this capsule is not that different from later missions in terms of mass.
Post by: flyright on 03/13/2019 04:21 pm
Ref the picture of the hanging Dragon 2 showing the "toasty marshmallow" effects... (UPDATES thread)
Great picture!
The dimpling caused by the heating on the side of the spacecraft is fascinating; I don't remember noticing that on Cargo Dragon.
Can someone describe what is happening there and implications for potential refurbishment impacts? Is it blistering due to moisture that naturally gets into the material (paint, insulation [PICA?] or whatever it is)? It looks like some of the blisters have peeled off leaving almost pure white underneath. Do those areas need to be replaced, or touched up, or could they refly as is on another orbital flight? (And I understand that this particular vehicle will fly the abort test, and there are no known current plans to refly NASA Dragon 2 spacecraft.)
Please attach the picture to your post
Not sure what cause the bubbling pattern, but the coating is ablative and meant to partially burn off.
For Cargo Dragons the coating is fresh each time the vehicle is refurbished. For the abort test, I don't know if they would bother with it.
I think this is the picture being referenced:
Post by: jeffreycornish on 03/13/2019 05:59 pm
SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material. It's mounted in sections so is likely just going to be replaced if it is damaged enough.
Ref the picture of the hanging Dragon 2 showing the "toasty marshmallow" effects... (UPDATES thread)
Great picture!
The dimpling caused by the heating on the side of the spacecraft is fascinating; I don't remember noticing that on Cargo Dragon.
Can someone describe what is happening there and implications for potential refurbishment impacts? Is it blistering due to moisture that naturally gets into the material (paint, insulation [PICA?] or whatever it is)? It looks like some of the blisters have peeled off leaving almost pure white underneath. Do those areas need to be replaced, or touched up, or could they refly as is on another orbital flight? (And I understand that this particular vehicle will fly the abort test, and there are no known current plans to refly NASA Dragon 2 spacecraft.)
Post by: Comga on 03/13/2019 06:48 pm
Ref the picture of the hanging Dragon 2 showing the "toasty marshmallow" effects... (UPDATES thread)Is it not established that Crew Dragon capsules will be reflown on cargo missions?
Great picture!
The dimpling caused by the heating on the side of the spacecraft is fascinating; I don't remember noticing that on Cargo Dragon.
Can someone describe what is happening there and implications for potential refurbishment impacts? Is it blistering due to moisture that naturally gets into the material (paint, insulation [PICA?] or whatever it is)? It looks like some of the blisters have peeled off leaving almost pure white underneath. Do those areas need to be replaced, or touched up, or could they refly as is on another orbital flight? (And I understand that this particular vehicle will fly the abort test, and there are no known current plans to refly NASA Dragon 2 spacecraft.)
Post by: Lars-J on 03/13/2019 07:54 pm
The white material used to insulate/protect the capsule is called SPAM
SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material. It's mounted in sections so is likely just going to be replaced if it is damaged enough.
Yes, and I believe that all reused Cargo Dragons have had *all* their sidewall SPAM removed and a new layer applied. The same should happen for Crew Dragon reuse.
Post by: woods170 on 03/14/2019 08:00 am
The white material used to insulate/protect the capsule is called SPAM
SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material. It's mounted in sections so is likely just going to be replaced if it is damaged enough.
Yes, and I believe that all reused Cargo Dragons have had *all* their sidewall SPAM removed and a new layer applied. The same should happen for Crew Dragon reuse.
Correct. Re-flown cargo Dragons have a fresh coat of SPAM. When flown Crew Dragons are repurposed as cargo Dragon v2 the very same thing will be done: fresh coat of SPAM will be applied.
Post by: guckyfan on 03/14/2019 08:03 am
Correct. Re-flown cargo Dragons have a fresh coat of SPAM. When flown Crew Dragons are repurposed as cargo Dragon v2 the very same thing will be done: fresh coat of SPAM will be applied.
I had thought they replace the complete outer panels.
Post by: woods170 on 03/14/2019 08:10 am
Ref the picture of the hanging Dragon 2 showing the "toasty marshmallow" effects... (UPDATES thread)
Great picture!
The dimpling caused by the heating on the side of the spacecraft is fascinating; I don't remember noticing that on Cargo Dragon.
Can someone describe what is happening there and implications for potential refurbishment impacts? Is it blistering due to moisture that naturally gets into the material (paint, insulation [PICA?] or whatever it is)? It looks like some of the blisters have peeled off leaving almost pure white underneath. Do those areas need to be replaced, or touched up, or could they refly as is on another orbital flight? (And I understand that this particular vehicle will fly the abort test, and there are no known current plans to refly NASA Dragon 2 spacecraft.)
Emphasis mine.
You will note the same effect, albeit less pronounced, on the pictures of a flown cargo Dragon in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36598.msg1318663#msg1318663
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 03/14/2019 09:28 pm
Post by: AC in NC on 03/14/2019 09:51 pm
How does Dragon compare in size, weight and meters cubed to Dragon 2?
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 03/14/2019 10:17 pm
How does Dragon compare in size, weight and meters cubed to Dragon 2?
So very interesting, I appreciate your giving the comparisons side by side. Until now my impressions were the capsules were of the same size, at least the basic pressurized bell would be the same. It looks like the Dragon 2 is in fact different, although very close to Dragon.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/15/2019 07:14 am
How does Dragon compare in size, weight and meters cubed to Dragon 2?
So very interesting, I appreciate your giving the comparisons side by side. Until now my impressions were the capsules were of the same size, at least the basic pressurized bell would be the same. It looks like the Dragon 2 is in fact different, although very close to Dragon.
Both vehicles have very similar payload capacity and internal volume. But Dragon2 also hosts an internal launch abort system, inc engines, larger tanks, a docking system and much more capable life support.
That results in larger dimensions and higher dry mass for the same payload and slightly reduced volume.
They basically added a lot of things ;)
Post by: woods170 on 03/15/2019 08:48 am
How does Dragon compare in size, weight and meters cubed to Dragon 2?
So very interesting, I appreciate your giving the comparisons side by side. Until now my impressions were the capsules were of the same size, at least the basic pressurized bell would be the same. It looks like the Dragon 2 is in fact different, although very close to Dragon.
Both vehicles have very similar payload capacity and internal volume. But Dragon2 also hosts an internal launch abort system, inc engines, larger tanks, a docking system and much more capable life support.
That results in larger dimensions and higher dry mass for the same payload and slightly reduced volume.
They basically added a lot of things ;)
The basic part of each Dragon (be it cargo or crew versions) is the pressure vessel (known at SpaceX as "the weldment).
The pressure vessel for Crew Dragon is very similar to that of cargo Dragon, but having a deeper "bucket" section. This increases overall height of the Crew Dragon, compared to cargo Dragon.
Diameter at the heathshield is identical between crew- and cargo Dragon. Both ships also have similar bell-shaped OMLs.
Post by: Nomadd on 03/15/2019 10:43 am
Post by: woods170 on 03/15/2019 11:46 am
Is that right? Dry mass is 9525kg compared to 4200kg for Dragon 1?
No, it is not correct.
The dry mass number for cargo Dragon is correct.
The number for Crew Dragon is not. This is because that number is publically sourced from the pad abort test where that number - of 9525 kg - was for the entire pad abort stack. Which included not only the pad abort test vehicle, but also mass sims for crew, a dummy, as well as a steel truss structure and a simulated upper part of F9.
The actual dry mass of Crew Dragon is - as far as I know - not publically known at this time.
Post by: scr00chy on 03/16/2019 12:06 am
The actual dry mass of Crew Dragon is - as far as I know - not publically known at this time.
This official document (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/media/draft-ea_spacex-dragon-gulf-landing.pdf) says:
Quote
Dragon-2 weighs approximately 16,976 pounds without cargo.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/16/2019 12:09 am
Post by: eeergo on 03/16/2019 12:33 am
EDIT: Actually, reviewing orbital photos I noticed the recess is uncovered but there don't appear to be pins? So some kind of data or commanding interface for recovery ops?
Post by: craiglv2 on 03/16/2019 03:01 pm
Post by: woods170 on 03/16/2019 03:57 pm
The actual dry mass of Crew Dragon is - as far as I know - not publically known at this time.
This official document (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/media/draft-ea_spacex-dragon-gulf-landing.pdf) says:QuoteDragon-2 weighs approximately 16,976 pounds without cargo.
If that's the dry weight, and the wording of that document suggest it is, it would put the dry weight of Crew Dragon at 7700 kg, which would make it 1.8 metric tons lighter than the number Nomadd provided earlier. This lower number is much more realistic I think.
Post by: Nomadd on 03/16/2019 04:17 pm
How much of that mass component is the Trunk?And how much is fuel?
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/16/2019 05:17 pm
The actual dry mass of Crew Dragon is - as far as I know - not publically known at this time.
This official document (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/media/draft-ea_spacex-dragon-gulf-landing.pdf) says:QuoteDragon-2 weighs approximately 16,976 pounds without cargo.
If that's the dry weight, and the wording of that document suggest it is, it would put the dry weight of Crew Dragon at 7700 kg, which would make it 1.8 metric tons lighter than the number Nomadd provided earlier. This lower number is much more realistic I think.
I think it's most probable that the mass on that document is the mass of the empty capsule, the mass Nomadd said is most probably that mass plus the mass of th trunk (1.8 metric tons sounds about right for the trunk, I don't see it having a mass higher than 2 metric tons). We also know that Crew Dragon is above 12 metric tons at launch, which would mean all the fuel mass would be in the order of 2-3 metric tons, that to me sounds right too.
Post by: daedalus1 on 03/16/2019 05:54 pm
The actual dry mass of Crew Dragon is - as far as I know - not publically known at this time.
This official document (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/media/draft-ea_spacex-dragon-gulf-landing.pdf) says:QuoteDragon-2 weighs approximately 16,976 pounds without cargo.
If that's the dry weight, and the wording of that document suggest it is, it would put the dry weight of Crew Dragon at 7700 kg, which would make it 1.8 metric tons lighter than the number Nomadd provided earlier. This lower number is much more realistic I think.
I think it's most probable that the mass on that document is the mass of the empty capsule, the mass Nomadd said is most probably that mass plus the mass of th trunk (1.8 metric tons sounds about right for the trunk, I don't see it having a mass higher than 2 metric tons). We also know that Crew Dragon is above 12 metric tons at launch, which would mean all the fuel mass would be in the order of 2-3 metric tons, that to me sounds right too.
Just a note.
If you spell ton as tonne, you don't need to prefix 'metric'.
Post by: gongora on 03/16/2019 06:09 pm
Just a note.
If you spell ton as tonne, you don't need to prefix 'metric'.
If we spelled ton as tonne we'd be british.
Post by: daedalus1 on 03/16/2019 06:52 pm
Just a note.
If you spell ton as tonne, you don't need to prefix 'metric'.
If we spelled ton as tonne we'd be british.
No mate. It's a universal spelling for a metric ton. If anything it's origin is French.
Post by: eriblo on 03/16/2019 08:04 pm
Since most of the numbers we have in this case are either in kg or in pounds it might be best to avoid using ton or tonne (t) instead, despite those being conveniently sized for rocket stuff - this discussion is a regular occurrence ::)Just a note.
If you spell ton as tonne, you don't need to prefix 'metric'.
If we spelled ton as tonne we'd be british.
No mate. It's a universal spelling for a metric ton. If anything it's origin is French.
I personally find someone clarifying "metric ton" funny as the ton as used in the USA is metric, defined as exactly 907.18474 kg ??? And please stay away from the milliteslas!
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/17/2019 02:52 am
Just to put this in perspective...The actual dry mass of Crew Dragon is - as far as I know - not publically known at this time.
This official document (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/media/draft-ea_spacex-dragon-gulf-landing.pdf) says:QuoteDragon-2 weighs approximately 16,976 pounds without cargo.
If that's the dry weight, and the wording of that document suggest it is, it would put the dry weight of Crew Dragon at 7700 kg, which would make it 1.8 metric tons lighter than the number Nomadd provided earlier. This lower number is much more realistic I think.
I think it's most probable that the mass on that document is the mass of the empty capsule, the mass Nomadd said is most probably that mass plus the mass of th trunk (1.8 metric tons sounds about right for the trunk, I don't see it having a mass higher than 2 metric tons). We also know that Crew Dragon is above 12 metric tons at launch, which would mean all the fuel mass would be in the order of 2-3 metric tons, that to me sounds right too.
If the mass without cargo is 9500kg and the mass of the propellant is 2.5 tons, and the Isp of the Dracos is 300s, that means it can do about 680m/s delta-v. That's enough (plenty) to enter and exit EML-2 (technically only requires 432m/s to do that, so we can afford to speed it up a bit).
Anyway.
Post by: scr00chy on 03/17/2019 03:24 am
And how much is fuel?From the same FAA document I linked above:
Quote
The Dragon-2 could contain up to 4,885 pounds of propellant which includes 3,004 pounds of NTO and 1,881 pounds of MMH.
Post by: Comga on 03/17/2019 04:04 am
That’s 2,216 kg prop =1,363 kg NTO +853 kg MMHAnd how much is fuel?From the same FAA document I linked above:QuoteThe Dragon-2 could contain up to 4,885 pounds of propellant which includes 3,004 pounds of NTO and 1,881 pounds of MMH.
Post by: strawwalker on 03/17/2019 05:17 am
And how much is fuel?From the same FAA document I linked above:QuoteThe Dragon-2 could contain up to 4,885 pounds of propellant which includes 3,004 pounds of NTO and 1,881 pounds of MMH.
That is on reentry after having used up what was needed for the mission. From the IFA draft assessment Dragon's propellant amounts are listed as ~2600 kg. Around 1500 kg of that is earmarked for launch escape and the other nearly 1100 kg presumably for maneuvers, attitude control, and deorbit.
Quote
Dragon would contain approximately 5,650 pounds of hypergolic propellant, including approximately 3,500 pounds of dinitrogen tetroxide (NTO) and 2,150 pounds of monomethylhydrazine (MMH). Dragon would contain approximately 2,400 pounds of residual propellant after the abort test.
That's a difference of less than 350 kg, not really enough to cut it for a round trip to ISS, but maybe those Reentry Environmental Assessment prop numbers are maximums meant to cover some failed rendezvous scenario where Dragon is reentering from a lower orbit?
Post by: scr00chy on 03/17/2019 01:27 pm
The propellant mass of 2600 kg you mentioned seems to fit better considering that Cargo Dragon uses about 1000 kg of propellant during regular operations (launches with 1290 kg (http://spaceflight101.com/spacecraft/dragon/) and lands with "up to 20 percent of the maximum propellant load" as per the FAA doc) and that should be similar on Crew Dragon. And if an abort uses 1500 kg as per IFA document, 2600 kg of propellant total at liftoff sounds about right.
Post by: groknull on 03/17/2019 04:28 pm
So what're these three pins on the nosecone? They look to have been exposed during reentry and not protected by some detachable cover. Maybe some interface for the CAA (they're right over the hatch)?
EDIT: Actually, reviewing orbital photos I noticed the recess is uncovered but there don't appear to be pins? So some kind of data or commanding interface for recovery ops?
Speculation:
The recess might be the atmospheric nosecone vent. The pins may be part of a plug inserted post-splashdown to prevent additional moist sea-air from circulating under the nosecone.
Post by: punder on 03/17/2019 05:19 pm
Post by: aviators99 on 03/17/2019 05:44 pm
Post by: AC in NC on 03/17/2019 05:55 pm
Is there a thread for the in-flight abort mission?
You can always find the threads from the pinned Manifest Thread. There is one there. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.0
Post by: strawwalker on 03/17/2019 07:00 pm
[...] from the document it sounds like they're talking about Dragon 2 in general, not about its state during reentry, but who knows.
It is certainly possible to be overconfident in conclusions drawn from those documents, and I speak with no authority. I just mean it as a suggestion for the discrepancy between the two documents which were published around the same time, late in Crew Dragon's development, and 350 kg is a reasonable amount of propellant to consume in a mission that aborts after reaching orbit. Your reading is reasonable also.
Most of this Dragon size/mass discussion probably belongs in the Crew Dragon discussion thread rather than here, but it may be possible to explain those prop numbers other ways depending on what assumptions you make about the propellant plumbing arrangements.
Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/18/2019 10:22 am
Have a good one,
Mike
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/18/2019 12:22 pm
Just a guess, but the pitching motion could be the rotation necessary to maintain orientation with the ISS as it rotates around the earth (it *does* keep the same relative position to the earth's surface, right?).Good guess.
Have a good one,
Mike
Yes, ISS typically maintains LVLH (local vertical/local horizontal) orientation relative to the earth’s surface, rotating very slowly with a period of 23 hours and 56 minutes (or whatever the more precise number is). So from the Station’s perspective, the Dragon will appear to pitch up over time and periodically have to reorientate to keep its nose pointed at the docking adapter.
Post by: The Roadie on 03/18/2019 12:57 pm
Shouldn't the period equal an orbit, not a day?Just a guess, but the pitching motion could be the rotation necessary to maintain orientation with the ISS as it rotates around the earth (it *does* keep the same relative position to the earth's surface, right?).Good guess.
Have a good one,
Mike
Yes, ISS typically maintains LVLH (local vertical/local horizontal) orientation relative to the earth’s surface, rotating very slowly with a period of 23 hours and 56 minutes (or whatever the more precise number is). So from the Station’s perspective, the Dragon will appear to pitch up over time and periodically have to reorientate to keep its nose pointed at the docking adapter.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/18/2019 01:07 pm
Yeah, correct. Needed more coffee before posting. :)Shouldn't the period equal an orbit, not a day?Just a guess, but the pitching motion could be the rotation necessary to maintain orientation with the ISS as it rotates around the earth (it *does* keep the same relative position to the earth's surface, right?).Good guess.
Have a good one,
Mike
Yes, ISS typically maintains LVLH (local vertical/local horizontal) orientation relative to the earth’s surface, rotating very slowly with a period of 23 hours and 56 minutes (or whatever the more precise number is). So from the Station’s perspective, the Dragon will appear to pitch up over time and periodically have to reorientate to keep its nose pointed at the docking adapter.
Post by: ThePonjaX on 03/19/2019 01:37 am
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47095.msg1924246#msg1924246
I know is imposible but I'd like to know what Mr. Bridenstine could do if he has the absolute power.
Yes, yes, he can't because the Senate, the jobs in Alabama etc. etc. but I'd like to hear what he could do: Just cut the SLS? Funding the Starship? Design the missions to make use of available comercial rockets?
The kind of conversation which you've with a very close friend at home with a glass of wine.
Post by: octavo on 03/19/2019 04:01 am
Doesn't ISS go into free floating mode when there is a visiting vehicle? So even movements by the crew inside could cause small changes in attitude of the ISS?Just a guess, but the pitching motion could be the rotation necessary to maintain orientation with the ISS as it rotates around the earth (it *does* keep the same relative position to the earth's surface, right?).Good guess.
Have a good one,
Mike
Yes, ISS typically maintains LVLH (local vertical/local horizontal) orientation relative to the earth’s surface, rotating very slowly with a period of 23 hours and 56 minutes (or whatever the more precise number is). So from the Station’s perspective, the Dragon will appear to pitch up over time and periodically have to reorientate to keep its nose pointed at the docking adapter.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/19/2019 06:51 am
Doesn't ISS go into free floating mode when there is a visiting vehicle? So even movements by the crew inside could cause small changes in attitude of the ISS?Just a guess, but the pitching motion could be the rotation necessary to maintain orientation with the ISS as it rotates around the earth (it *does* keep the same relative position to the earth's surface, right?).Good guess.
Have a good one,
Mike
Yes, ISS typically maintains LVLH (local vertical/local horizontal) orientation relative to the earth’s surface, rotating very slowly with a period of 23 hours and 56 minutes (or whatever the more precise number is). So from the Station’s perspective, the Dragon will appear to pitch up over time and periodically have to reorientate to keep its nose pointed at the docking adapter.
In theory, yes. However the crew is very light compared to the total mass of the station (~420000kg ), and the impulses they impart on the structure while moving inside mostly cancel each other out over time, so they can't accumulate.
The station as a whole has a rotational momentum, so even in free drift it will keep rotating at that rate.
What might have a visible effect is the actuation of large, heavy, mobile substructures, especially those on the outside and far from the center of mass:
-Robotic arms
-Rotating solar panels and radiators ( although they were locked fixes for docking )
-Fluids circulating in the station, such as coolant. ( although steady state constant flow should cancel out )
Post by: Shanuson on 03/19/2019 07:12 am
Doesn't ISS go into free floating mode when there is a visiting vehicle? So even movements by the crew inside could cause small changes in attitude of the ISS?Just a guess, but the pitching motion could be the rotation necessary to maintain orientation with the ISS as it rotates around the earth (it *does* keep the same relative position to the earth's surface, right?).Good guess.
Have a good one,
Mike
Yes, ISS typically maintains LVLH (local vertical/local horizontal) orientation relative to the earth’s surface, rotating very slowly with a period of 23 hours and 56 minutes (or whatever the more precise number is). So from the Station’s perspective, the Dragon will appear to pitch up over time and periodically have to reorientate to keep its nose pointed at the docking adapter.
To my knowledge ISS was not in free float when dragon docked (they highlighted that on the webcast IIRC).
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/19/2019 07:55 am
Doesn't ISS go into free floating mode when there is a visiting vehicle? So even movements by the crew inside could cause small changes in attitude of the ISS?Just a guess, but the pitching motion could be the rotation necessary to maintain orientation with the ISS as it rotates around the earth (it *does* keep the same relative position to the earth's surface, right?).Good guess.
Have a good one,
Mike
Yes, ISS typically maintains LVLH (local vertical/local horizontal) orientation relative to the earth’s surface, rotating very slowly with a period of 23 hours and 56 minutes (or whatever the more precise number is). So from the Station’s perspective, the Dragon will appear to pitch up over time and periodically have to reorientate to keep its nose pointed at the docking adapter.
Not for Dragon, the ISS attitude control was on active mode. For Soyuz it is deactivated
Post by: Tommyboy on 03/19/2019 07:42 pm
Why this difference? Because the Dragon was unmanned, and will the ISS attitude control be deactivated during manned Dragon approaches? Or is the Dragon better in dealing with a moving target than Soyuz?Doesn't ISS go into free floating mode when there is a visiting vehicle? So even movements by the crew inside could cause small changes in attitude of the ISS?Just a guess, but the pitching motion could be the rotation necessary to maintain orientation with the ISS as it rotates around the earth (it *does* keep the same relative position to the earth's surface, right?).Good guess.
Have a good one,
Mike
Yes, ISS typically maintains LVLH (local vertical/local horizontal) orientation relative to the earth’s surface, rotating very slowly with a period of 23 hours and 56 minutes (or whatever the more precise number is). So from the Station’s perspective, the Dragon will appear to pitch up over time and periodically have to reorientate to keep its nose pointed at the docking adapter.
Not for Dragon, the ISS attitude control was on active mode. For Soyuz it is deactivated
To be sure: This is not a "Russia sux, SpaceX rocks" comment, I'm genuinely curious.
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/19/2019 07:50 pm
Why this difference? Because the Dragon was unmanned, and will the ISS attitude control be deactivated during manned Dragon approaches? Or is the Dragon better in dealing with a moving target than Soyuz?Doesn't ISS go into free floating mode when there is a visiting vehicle? So even movements by the crew inside could cause small changes in attitude of the ISS?Just a guess, but the pitching motion could be the rotation necessary to maintain orientation with the ISS as it rotates around the earth (it *does* keep the same relative position to the earth's surface, right?).Good guess.
Have a good one,
Mike
Yes, ISS typically maintains LVLH (local vertical/local horizontal) orientation relative to the earth’s surface, rotating very slowly with a period of 23 hours and 56 minutes (or whatever the more precise number is). So from the Station’s perspective, the Dragon will appear to pitch up over time and periodically have to reorientate to keep its nose pointed at the docking adapter.
Not for Dragon, the ISS attitude control was on active mode. For Soyuz it is deactivated
To be sure: This is not a "Russia sux, SpaceX rocks" comment, I'm genuinely curious.
I don't know exactly the reason but it is not precisely due to it not having crew onboard, for Progress missions it happens the same as Soyuz and those don't carry crew.
Post by: jarmumd on 03/19/2019 07:53 pm
Why this difference? Because the Dragon was unmanned, and will the ISS attitude control be deactivated during manned Dragon approaches? Or is the Dragon better in dealing with a moving target than Soyuz?
Not for Dragon, the ISS attitude control was on active mode. For Soyuz it is deactivated
To be sure: This is not a "Russia sux, SpaceX rocks" comment, I'm genuinely curious.
I don't know the technical reason why Soyuz doesn't. ISS would rather stay in control (the longer it is in drift, the more prop must be used to get back to the desired orientation). AFAIK this isn't a requirement. Concern is alignment of docking hooks and umbilical connections if station begins a large control thrust during docking.
Post by: eeergo on 03/19/2019 11:24 pm
By contrast, the newly-designed mechanism used in the IDA, International Docking System Standard (IDSS) uses the NASA version of this standard (NDS), which is an upgrade of the long-developed LIDS (NDS=iLIDS), a low-impact version of the Soviet-conceived APAS-95 - which already required lower contact velocities to engage than the SSVP. Still, Shuttle needed ISS to go on free drift, but of course it had a much more spread mass distribution and consequently torques, and APAS needed a considerable force to engage anyway.
Point is, Crew Dragon's docking mechanism requires much less moment transfer to ISS than Soyuz/Progress'.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 03/20/2019 10:33 am
Why this difference? Because the Dragon was unmanned, and will the ISS attitude control be deactivated during manned Dragon approaches? Or is the Dragon better in dealing with a moving target than Soyuz?
Not for Dragon, the ISS attitude control was on active mode. For Soyuz it is deactivated
To be sure: This is not a "Russia sux, SpaceX rocks" comment, I'm genuinely curious.
I don't know the technical reason why Soyuz doesn't. ISS would rather stay in control (the longer it is in drift, the more prop must be used to get back to the desired orientation). AFAIK this isn't a requirement. Concern is alignment of docking hooks and umbilical connections if station begins a large control thrust during docking.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/04/26/how-does-the-international-space-station-keep-its-orientation/
Very relevant article for that.
Post by: Brian45 on 03/25/2019 04:04 pm
thanks
Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/25/2019 04:38 pm
If there's anything beyond that I don't know of it.
Have a good one,
Mike
Post by: octavo on 03/26/2019 04:54 am
There was a supposed isopropyl alcohol odor that happened shortly after the hatch was opened, but I think that was attributed to ISS.
I do not think it was attributed to ISS. There is some information on the L2 ISS section that is relevant to this. Have not seen anything about it since, despite looking.
Post by: JohnLloydJones on 03/26/2019 02:33 pm
Given that they tested the air in Dragon before circulating ISS air, I would suspect that the isopropanol is more likely to have come from the cargo items being unpacked than Dragon itself.There was a supposed isopropyl alcohol odor that happened shortly after the hatch was opened, but I think that was attributed to ISS.
I do not think it was attributed to ISS. There is some information on the L2 ISS section that is relevant to this. Have not seen anything about it since, despite looking.
Post by: octavo on 03/26/2019 02:46 pm
I would have thought that too, but if it was cargo doing it, then that cargo wasn't unpacked.Given that they tested the air in Dragon before circulating ISS air, I would suspect that the isopropanol is more likely to have come from the cargo items being unpacked than Dragon itself.There was a supposed isopropyl alcohol odor that happened shortly after the hatch was opened, but I think that was attributed to ISS.
I do not think it was attributed to ISS. There is some information on the L2 ISS section that is relevant to this. Have not seen anything about it since, despite looking.
Edit: upon rereading the ISS thread, I now understand why no one is talking much about it. The levels (while much higher than normal iss background) were still well below the maximum allowable for a visiting vehicle. Like, weeeeelll below.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/31/2019 03:09 am
(When we go on dive expeditions to collect animals for our aquarium the first time staff members are referred to as the NFGs - short for, er, New Falcon Guys)
https://nasa.tumblr.com/post/183818728674/the-international-space-station-through-the-eyes/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Post by: Rondaz on 04/03/2019 04:14 pm
Anna Heiney Posted on April 3, 2019
NASA and Boeing are nearing the final stages of development and evaluation for crew systems that will return human spaceflight launches from American soil on missions to the International Space Station as part of the agency’s Commercial Crew Program. To meet NASA’s requirements, the commercial providers must demonstrate that their systems are ready to begin regular flights to the space station.
Boeing now is targeting the company’s uncrewed mission, called Orbital Flight Test, in August 2019, although this is a working target date and to be confirmed. The CST-100 Starliner will launch atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The decision to adjust the launch date was guided by limited launch opportunities in April and May, as well as a critical U.S. Air Force national security launch – AEHF-5 – atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 in June.
Following the uncrewed flight, Boeing is planning to fly a test mission with crew on board to the space station in late 2019, with the specific date to be confirmed closer to that timeframe. NASA and Boeing have agreed to extend the duration of that flight test to the International Space Station after completing an in-depth technical assessment of the Starliner systems. Boeing also will fly a Pad Abort Test before those two orbital flights to demonstrate the company’s ability to safely carry astronauts away from a launch vehicle emergency, if necessary. Find a full mission and Boeing progress feature here: https://go.nasa.gov/2FM8zcQ.
Following the test flights, NASA will review performance data and resolve any necessary issues to certify the systems for operational missions. NASA and Boeing are actively working to be ready for the operational missions. As with all human spaceflight vehicle development, learning from each test and adjusting as necessary to reduce risk to the crew may override planning dates.
The following planning dates reflect updated schedule inputs for Boeing’s test flights as of March 26, 2019.
Test Flight Planning Dates:
Boeing Pad Abort Test: Summer 2019
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): current target working date August 2019
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): current target working date late 2019
SpaceX Demo-2 Update
NASA also is working with SpaceX to return human spaceflight launches to American soil. The company completed an uncrewed flight test, known as Demo-1, to the space station in March. SpaceX now is processing the same Crew Dragon spacecraft for an in-flight abort test. The company then will fly a flight test with a crew, known as Demo-2, to the station.
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and SpaceX are expected to reevaluate its target test dates in the next couple weeks.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/04/03/nasas-commercial-crew-program-boeing-test-flight-dates-and-spacex-demo-2-update/
Post by: aviators99 on 04/05/2019 07:15 am
Post by: woods170 on 04/05/2019 08:17 am
Have there been any (released) images and/or telemetry data from Ripley, during and/or after reentry?
No. Images might appear at some point in time. But telemetry and data won't appear publically because that's SpaceX property.
Post by: flyright on 04/09/2019 07:50 pm
For historical record: SpaceX’s statement in case of Demo-1 Crew Dragon parachute failure
This can be confusing.
Not sure this is needed "for historical record" when the parachutes actually deployed and the mission was successful.
Post by: mme on 04/10/2019 12:18 am
Agreed. Seems more likely to be useful for people that will warp it to their own ends. I'd be curious where the audio comes from, someone really messed up.For historical record: SpaceX’s statement in case of Demo-1 Crew Dragon parachute failure
This can be confusing.
Not sure this is needed "for historical record" when the parachutes actually deployed and the mission was successful.
Musk said reentry was the largest risk because of the unique mold line. I imagine that was the driver of this, not the parachutes. Being prepared for failure is not an indictment of SpaceX, it shows they take the risks serious.
Post by: Draggendrop on 05/15/2019 02:53 am
Post by: jee_c2 on 05/17/2019 04:06 pm
Post by: jee_c2 on 05/17/2019 04:08 pm
Post by: gongora on 07/21/2021 12:56 am
Quote
Crew Dragon's DM-1 test mission was launched in Mar 2019 and left its trunk in a 394 x 401 km orbit. The trunk reentered on Jul 20