SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates

[mr. mark]

Wow, first off great COTS-1 flight by Spacex but, I believe a measured approach for the future is best. I'm not just talking about the flight, which appeared spot on. I'm also talking about the pad which experienced some damage. Until Spacex can address all aspects of flight operations and make them seamless, it is too soon to say that they should rush this or that. As someone who remembers the tragedy of Apollo 1, I would hate to see history repeated. Dream big but, take the time to get it right. 

[Comga]

I just wanted to 'fess up.  My post last night expressed grave doubt that SpaceX would actually modify the second stage engine bell.  I must be an "old school" old man.  I still think it is remarkably, astoundingly daring, even if the explanation after the fact shows their decision to be more methodical than the bits and pieces that were let out before launch.  Whether the enormous success of the mission justifies the choice is not obvious to me, but it seems to be to SpaceX.  Frankly, this much success was unimaginable, and I am quite delighted to see it.   

Waiting with curiosity for tomorrow's announcement of the "secret payload"...

[butters]

I doubt that fixing any pad damage and addressing the umbilical issue are the long poles toward a COTS2/3 attempt next summer. They had something similar to this problem on flight 1, and they'll definitely want to resolve this for the next flight, especially since there are so few other issues to address this time.

The long poles are almost certainly the solar arrays and the avionics upgrades. The umbilical check valve or quick-disconnect or whatever is a comparatively small challenge, and they should have plenty of time to work it for next summer.

[baldusi]

All the milestones involved with COTS3, and the mission are all together only 50 million total (8 million for the actual launch).   This is cheap compared to the actual CRS missions.  Why would NASA let SpaceX skip COTS 3 when it's basically a 1/2 price CRS delivery.

It's not only a 1/2 CRS. I would feel better in relaying a rocket with 4 successful flight rather than 3. Ditto with the reentry (2 vs 3), ISS aproaches (2 vs 1) and the whole mission control (2 vs 3). If NASA paid their money they should get it back. The trade off is an extra six months for the next CRS. But since the COTS 3 is a sort of CRS, I don't see much problems there.

[butters]

If NASA permits SpaceX to combine COTS2/3, then SpaceX should agree to provide CRS1 for the price of COTS3. That seems like a fair deal.

[arkaska]

All the milestones involved with COTS3, and the mission are all together only 50 million total (8 million for the actual launch).   This is cheap compared to the actual CRS missions.  Why would NASA let SpaceX skip COTS 3 when it's basically a 1/2 price CRS delivery.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/162330main_SPACE_ACT_AGREEMENT_FOR_COTS.pdf

Honestly today's success just made all the following COTS/CRS milestones a LOT easier because now have a flown dragon to learn lessons from.

My comment was not that they should skip COTS 3 just that if the next COTS would dock to ISS their wouldn't be any point in a having a third one. If what you are saying is true that it is more likely that COTS 2 will not dock with ISS.

[Comga]

Remember that the contract for COTS was to produce data and demonstrate capabilities.  If NASA feels sufficiently comfortable with letting COTS 2 fly close enough to the ISS, they get more data faster by combining the flights.  Remember, NASA is very anxious to have this capability, and combining flights would put them closer to their original schedule.  The COTS 2 flight may have to spend that much more time near the ISS, where they probably will be demonstrating abort maneuvers like the HTV and ATV did.   

[Lars_J]

If NASA permits SpaceX to combine COTS2/3, then SpaceX should agree to provide CRS1 for the price of COTS3. That seems like a fair deal.

Aren't the COTS contracts dealing more with technical milestones, and not the # of actual flights? I don't believe SpaceX get paid per flight, per se, for these test missions. COTS 1/2/3 was just an agreed-upon schedule - but I could be wrong.

[Hauerg]

It the next COTS would berth to ISS there is no point in sending up another COTS. COTS are there to verify the systems BEFORE they berth with ISS..

All the milestones involved with COTS3, and the mission are all together only 50 million total (8 million for the actual launch).   This is cheap compared to the actual CRS missions.  Why would NASA let SpaceX skip COTS 3 when it's basically a 1/2 price CRS delivery.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/162330main_SPACE_ACT_AGREEMENT_FOR_COTS.pdf

Honestly today's success just made all the following COTS/CRS milestones a LOT easier because now have a flown dragon to learn lessons from.

IIRC COTS included berthing to ISS but NO cargo. Did not make a lot of sense to me anyway.

[Antares]

Here is a rough comparison of how much they shortened the nozzle.
Left is Flight 1, on the right Flight 2

Nice job, Dapholine.  Useful.

[Comga]

So if they load COTS 2 with the three T's (Tee shirts, tang, and toilet paper) and it docks to the ISS, it's win-win-win.  Earlier data for NASA, earlier cargo for ISS, one fewer rocket for SpaceX to build.  It would be audacious, but SpaceX seems to be that today.

[Antares]

This makes NASA look extremely bad, considering how much they planned in for the Ares I and still plan in for a heavy lifter.

Not all of NASA.  Just the parts that foisted on us the debacle of Ares... 'Course, certain Representatives, Senators and contractors are accomplices in that crime.

[Antares]

but when he was asked about combining COTS 2/3 his smile disappeared and he looked extremely uncomfortable. His mouth gave the predictably non-committal answer, but his expression said, I'm really not happy with this idea.

He has little if any say.  Only Station gets to decide if someone approaches.  This question would be better asked to Suffredini and the resupply manager.

[Antares]

While NASA is "anxious," it also has a dozens of billions of dollars asset to protect.  Dragon still has to prove it can talk to, safely approach and temporarily be a part of this asset.  NONE of that was proven today.  That's non-trivial.

[jhoblik]

ESA had no experience unmanned spacecraft - before first ATV flight. ESA ATV was allow to dock with ISS on their first flight. What is difference between ESA and Spacex experience? I didn't see any reason not let them approach ISS on the next flight and if every test will be OK like in ATV flight let them to dock.

While NASA is "anxious," it also has a dozens of billions of dollars asset to protect.  Dragon still has to prove it can talk to, safely approach and temporarily be a part of this asset.  NONE of that was proven today.  That's non-trivial.

[Lars_J]

We don't know the exact details of the oversight and/or control NASA had over the ATV design and testing, so it might be apples and oranges.

But note that ESA had the LV in operation, and experience with spacecraft development. SpaceX had neither when the COTS contracts were drawn up.

But the ATV (and HTV) still did pretty extensive on-orbit testing before approaching ISS.

[Lars_J]

Regarding the 'humorous' cargo of this mission, and it being Monty Python related... My guess is that it was something like this:

(a can of spam)

It would be a nice 'poke in the eye' to the 'spam in a can' critics of commercial HSF capsules. 

[iamlucky13]

The ability to bring the rocket to a hanger with a lot more ease than say the crawlers. Can you imagine how much longer it would take to fix a problem on Ares 1, Saturn I, or Saturn V's Second stage?

Not a good comparison. Falcon 9 weighs maybe 50 tons at rollout. Shuttle stack weighs more like 1400 tons because of the SRB's. This makes both the structure required to stabilize and tilt up the shuttle huge (Buran had it a little better because of the liquid boosters, but its erector was gargantuan (photo)), and it makes transporting that load across a swamp much more complicated. Keep in mind that part of the reason for the crawlers was the large track area to distribute the load to the roadbed, versus the substantial foundation a rail system would have needed.

There are also quite a few more factors than just rollout making a shuttle launch complicated. Cutting half a day off of rollout to bring the time for that task in line with Falcon doesn't substantially change the overall time from rollout to launch with shuttle.

I was looking at that picture they posted of the technician working in the interstage cutting off the nozzle.  It looks like he was able to stand on a platform and walk around the nozzle with the cut line always around 5 feet off the platform.  If the nozzle had been horizontal, he'd have had to get under it for the bottom, get on a ladder or scaffold for the sides and do I'm-not-sure-what to get to the top.  In other words, it was probably easier in the vertical position.

It also keeps the nozzle in symmetrical loading compared to having it on its side with no stiffening band in place. It would be more likely to flop around in the horizontal position.

Plus, a basket is easier to move than the entire erector and launch support base. I'd imagine the latter part is probably pinned or bolted in place when the rocket is vertical.

[gospacex]

Anything Ares I can do, Falcon can do - better!

Not defending the stick or anything, but at this point such observations are like beating a horse run over by a steamroller. Twice. Just let this chapter of space history close.

People who organized Ares I/V debacle are still mostly in place. For example, "our experts in Utah". I bet we will see them again pushing for, say, 5-seg SRBs even though SLS does not need those. And other groups will similarly try to squeeze as much pork from SLS as possible.

Musk is their nightmare. >>8]

Go SpaceX!

[Ben the Space Brit]

The merger of COTS-2 and COTS-3 depends on many things, one of which is the performance of the Dragon's GNC and RCS system.  Personally, I would allow SpaceX to perform an ISS rendezvous on the next flight but still insist on a separate proximity operations and docking flight.