SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates

[arkaska]

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

You have to remember that ESA put more money into development and testing before they actually flew. They also had a back-up docking system in Kurs which Dragon do not have.

[Space Lizard]

While Dragon, like HTV, has to be grabbed by RMS, ATV has an autonomous docking capability, which requires a high level of redundancy and built-in intelligence for self-abort and collision avoidance.

It is also reportedly able to dock with an unstabilized ISS.

[sandrot]

Positioning for RMS grab doesn't require less ability.

There are advantages with berthing, for once, it's much better for cargo.

[cuddihy]

This morning it occurred to me that you have to parse Musk's words carefully, even when his "mind is blown."

I came out of the press conference thinking that Musk had alleged that Dragon can carry 7 crew to ISS, compared to only 3 for Orion.

That surprised me given that there's obviously going to weight penalties for ELCSS & especially for abort capability engines & propellant.

After looking back over the words, he only said it can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.

In other words, Dragon cargo with ELCSS can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.
Dragon crew most likely won't have the space or margin for more than 3.

He's sneaky. I bet if you strip a lot of equipment off of Orion you can make it a 7 person lifeboat as well, at very low cost.

[jabe]

He's sneaky. I bet if you strip a lot of equipment off of Orion you can make it a 7 person lifeboat as well, at very low cost.

my 2 cents on what he was thinking...
I think what he is indirectly saying is for the cost (and time savings), Dragon is the way to go.  Orion hasn't flown yet and will cost $X to finish and test.  Spacex has now flown dragon and can do pretty much the same thing..so modify it as you like for x% less then cost for just finishing Orion.  And if NASA lets Spacex reuse some of the dragons..savings is much more..

jb

[beancounter]

This morning it occurred to me that you have to parse Musk's words carefully, even when his "mind is blown."

I came out of the press conference thinking that Musk had alleged that Dragon can carry 7 crew to ISS, compared to only 3 for Orion.

That surprised me given that there's obviously going to weight penalties for ELCSS & especially for abort capability engines & propellant.

After looking back over the words, he only said it can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.

In other words, Dragon cargo with ELCSS can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.
Dragon crew most likely won't have the space or margin for more than 3.

He's sneaky. I bet if you strip a lot of equipment off of Orion you can make it a 7 person lifeboat as well, at very low cost.

Conspiracy warning.  Everything I've seen and heard including the video graphic shows the capsule with 7 crew both ways.  In addition, the upmass is twice what the downmass is on the vehicle - 6000kg to 3000kg.  Show me any evidence that what you're saying is valid and I'll reconsider.  Can't say I consider the press conference as tangible evidence.

[cuddihy]

This morning it occurred to me that you have to parse Musk's words carefully, even when his "mind is blown."

I came out of the press conference thinking that Musk had alleged that Dragon can carry 7 crew to ISS, compared to only 3 for Orion.

That surprised me given that there's obviously going to weight penalties for ELCSS & especially for abort capability engines & propellant.

After looking back over the words, he only said it can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.

In other words, Dragon cargo with ELCSS can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.
Dragon crew most likely won't have the space or margin for more than 3.

He's sneaky. I bet if you strip a lot of equipment off of Orion you can make it a 7 person lifeboat as well, at very low cost.

Conspiracy warning.  Everything I've seen and heard including the video graphic shows the capsule with 7 crew both ways.  In addition, the upmass is twice what the downmass is on the vehicle - 6000kg to 3000kg.  Show me any evidence that what you're saying is valid and I'll reconsider.  Can't say I consider the press conference as tangible evidence.

Perhaps I should have clarified that this is an alternate, likely interpretation of his statement.

I just don't see where the extra mass and space requirements of the abort system and ELCSS go, unless they can reduce the existing margins by that much!

[TrueBlueWitt]

This morning it occurred to me that you have to parse Musk's words carefully, even when his "mind is blown."

I came out of the press conference thinking that Musk had alleged that Dragon can carry 7 crew to ISS, compared to only 3 for Orion.

That surprised me given that there's obviously going to weight penalties for ELCSS & especially for abort capability engines & propellant.

After looking back over the words, he only said it can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.

In other words, Dragon cargo with ELCSS can act as a lifeboat for 7 people.
Dragon crew most likely won't have the space or margin for more than 3.

He's sneaky. I bet if you strip a lot of equipment off of Orion you can make it a 7 person lifeboat as well, at very low cost.

Conspiracy warning.  Everything I've seen and heard including the video graphic shows the capsule with 7 crew both ways.  In addition, the upmass is twice what the downmass is on the vehicle - 6000kg to 3000kg.  Show me any evidence that what you're saying is valid and I'll reconsider.  Can't say I consider the press conference as tangible evidence.

Ineresting thought.. While it may take Space-X 3 years to launch men to orbit(Develop some sort of LAS).. How long would it take to have a "life boat" Dragon ready that launched unmanned?

[arkaska]

Ineresting thought.. While it may take Space-X 3 years to launch men to orbit(Develop some sort of LAS).. How long would it take to have a "life boat" Dragon ready that launched unmanned?

Dragon is not certified for any long stay in orbit so that has to be worked out. IIRC the plan is to have orion light as a life boat since Dragon is not built to stay in orbit for 6 months.

[Jorge]

While Dragon, like HTV, has to be grabbed by RMS, ATV has an autonomous docking capability, which requires a high level of redundancy and built-in intelligence for self-abort and collision avoidance.

Incorrect. The levels of redundancy and intelligence required are the same.

[Jorge]

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

SpaceX is getting less NASA insight/oversight than either ESA or JAXA. ATV and HTV were under development for over a decade and NASA was involved at every step. In airport security terms, SpaceX got a couple of waves with the metal detector wand while ESA and JAXA got the full body-cavity search.

[Jorge]

Ineresting thought.. While it may take Space-X 3 years to launch men to orbit(Develop some sort of LAS).. How long would it take to have a "life boat" Dragon ready that launched unmanned?

Dragon is not certified for any long stay in orbit so that has to be worked out. IIRC the plan is to have orion light as a life boat since Dragon is not built to stay in orbit for 6 months.

You do not recall correctly.

[marsavian]

http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/b7f497e4aa85d103f0d6d9a8dd704a6f-126.html

Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, who oversaw implementation of the COTS program, said in an email the Falcon 9/Dragon launch was a "stunning achievement for SpaceX."

"New launch systems are notable for their high failure rate on early test flights, yet Falcon 9 is now two-for-two with its success today," he said. "Moreover, the first flight of any new air- or spacecraft is an uncertain event, even more so when the vehicle must be reentered and recovered. To accomplish all of this so early in the planned flight test sequence is a marvelous feat for SpaceX."

[beancounter]

Ineresting thought.. While it may take Space-X 3 years to launch men to orbit(Develop some sort of LAS).. How long would it take to have a "life boat" Dragon ready that launched unmanned?

Dragon is not certified for any long stay in orbit so that has to be worked out. IIRC the plan is to have orion light as a life boat since Dragon is not built to stay in orbit for 6 months.

You do not recall correctly.

Yes, IIRC up to 2 years in flight for Dragon Lab.  Mind you, checked their datasheet and it doesn't specify.

So far as lifeboat goes, I'd expect it wouldn't be more than 12 months.  The complex issue is the LAS.  At the post launch press conference, Elon referred to the other requirements as 'minor'.  Seats, environmental upgrade and so on.

[cuddihy]

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

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

if I were Suffredini I'm pretty sure I'd want a separate COTS 2 and 3, because of 1. the increase in data to review for flight safety, 2. the difference of COTS1 vehicle from COTS 2 and 3, (i.e. solar panels and extended performance over time) and most crucially, 3. the opportunity to review COTS-2 prox-ops and rendezvous data outside of the time-pressure of a flight environment.

At the very least I wouldn't authorize a combined COTS-2/3 without an extended on-orbit period between 2 and 3 that gave adequate time for a thorough data review between prox ops /approach and the actual COTS-3 berthing.

(queue somebody at NASA to say, "I know Suffredini. Suffredini is a friend of mine, and you're no Suffredini...")

[TrueBlueWitt]

Ineresting thought.. While it may take Space-X 3 years to launch men to orbit(Develop some sort of LAS).. How long would it take to have a "life boat" Dragon ready that launched unmanned?

Dragon is not certified for any long stay in orbit so that has to be worked out. IIRC the plan is to have orion light as a life boat since Dragon is not built to stay in orbit for 6 months.

You do not recall correctly.

Yes, IIRC up to 2 years in flight for Dragon Lab.  Mind you, checked their datasheet and it doesn't specify.

So far as lifeboat goes, I'd expect it wouldn't be more than 12 months.  The complex issue is the LAS.  At the post launch press conference, Elon referred to the other requirements as 'minor'.  Seats, environmental upgrade and so on.

LAS is not needed for Dragon to function in a "lifeboat only" mode.  Could be launched without LAS with a full load of Cargo then serve as lifeboat for crew return.

The bigger issue is it's inability to undock without Station support from Robotic arm

Then you're talking need for APAS.. and APAS hardware on station. And all the required testing.

I think you could use it for mixed crew and cargo return if something went wrong with a soyuz on orbit, but not in an emergency situation requiring rapid egress..

[Kabloona]

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

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

I wonder, then, if Alan's apparent discomfort means he knows that Suffredini et. al. are against the idea, and he's caught in the middle between them and SpaceX.

[cuddihy]

It sounds like you're working under the assumption that the damage was a preexisting condition that simply wasn't caught.   What would your opinion on the matter be if the damage had developed after integration with the vehicle?  In that situation, it seems their process caught it at exactly the right time.  I don't believe they've released information that implies one situation over the other, so I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Still a process failure. 
1.  The damage occurred
2.   the incident that caused the damage wasn't caught right away or still is unknown.

Just to close this one out, it was not a "process failure," unless your definition of "process failure" is so broad as to be "anything that causes failure that could have been prevented,"

SpaceX traced the root cause of the cracks, located in the aft end of the nozzle, to a GN2 vent line that “caused flutter of the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, creating the cracks,” the company said in a statement.

Engineers cut off the bottom 4 ft. of the nozzle extension and corrected the root cause by diffusing the vent. “The extension increases the efficiency of the Merlin engine in vacuum and is installed by default on all upper-stage Merlin engines, but that efficiency increase is not required for this mission,” company spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said in a statement.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/spacex-dragon-spacecraft-successful-test-flight-101208.html

[arkaska]

SpaceX is getting less NASA insight/oversight than either ESA or JAXA. ATV and HTV were under development for over a decade and NASA was involved at every step. In airport security terms, SpaceX got a couple of waves with the metal detector wand while ESA and JAXA got the full body-cavity search.

Is it NASA or Russia who decides when ATV was "good enough" to dock since it docks on the RS?

[hop]

Is it NASA or Russia who decides when ATV was "good enough" to dock since it docks on the RS?

Both. Dockings on the Russian side still have effects on the US side (structural loads, for example), and prox ops need to be safe for both segments.