SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates

[ugordan]

That makes a lot of sense. Your point being that they are not lauching soon despite the recent tests.

Once again, no one's actually saying here they are *not* launching "soon" or that the problem is still the software. I don't know how you people parse other people's posts, but some seem to get the wrong conclusions out of them.

All that was pointed out is that a LV fueling test is no indicator of payload readiness.

[yg1968]

That makes a lot of sense. Your point being that they are not launching soon despite the recent tests.

Once again, no one's actually saying here they are *not* launching "soon" or that the problem is still the software. I don't know how you people parse other people's posts, but some seem to get the wrong conclusions out of them.

All that was pointed out is that a LV fueling test is no indicator of payload readiness.

Fair enough. But the zombie comment above made it sound like Dragon was a zombie spacecraft because of software problems. Glad to know this is probably not the case. Thanks for the clarification.

[mr. mark]

Update on Falcon 9 COTS-1. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/100916wdr/

[mr. mark]

"The company plans another practice countdown soon that will culminate in a brief ignition of the Falcon's nine Merlin first stage engines, but the spokesperson did not respond to questions on its schedule".

So it seems the next test will also be the test fire.

[butters]

I wonder why they don't combine the tanking and static fire into one test at this point.  The incremental approach made sense for the maiden flight, but it doesn't seem appropriate going forward assuming that static fire will remain a part of the standard launch flow.  If they've got the launch vehicle tanked up nominally, they might as well go ahead and do the static fire.  Maybe they'll combine them for flight 3?

[Jim]

the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

[jabe]

Article had some good tidbits but I wanted more pictures particularly of the dragon  
jb
BTW took me a while to figure out the acronyms..wet dress rehearsal and standard operating procedure..or I hope that is what they are  

[beancounter]

Speaking of acronyms, what would SLS stand for:  Shuttle Launch System, Space Launch System??  I've seen it used a number of times but not explained.

Cheers.

[Proponent]

Speaking of acronyms, what would SLS stand for:  Shuttle Launch System, Space Launch System??

The Senate bill defines it as Space Launch System, though some prefer the term Senate Launch System .

[beancounter]

Thanks

[Lars_J]

the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

Could they be doing it to test their torque-dampening mods?

[beancounter]

the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

Why is that?

[NotGncDude]

the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

That's Oldspace SOP. Newspace does static fires

[Ronsmytheiii]

the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

That's Oldspace SOP. Newspace does static fires

If so new space wastes more money than "old space."

[NotGncDude]

the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

That's Oldspace SOP. Newspace does static fires

If so new space wastes more money than "old space."

Nope. A static fire is worth more than several months of paper risk assessments.

[Plasursci]

the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

They may stop doing static fires at some point, but they shouldn't do so just because it's standard-operating procedure for other vehicles. Their test plan will be based on what they deem necessary to verify that their vehicle is performing as designed.

[Antares]

the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

That's Oldspace SOP. Newspace does static fires

If so new space wastes more money than "old space."

Nope. A static fire is worth more than several months of paper risk assessments.

What paper risk assessments?  You have a cynical and inaccurate view of vehicle processing.  The question is what does the static fire screen for?  And don't answer that, because anything other than nothing (which is accurate) is eyetar.

[Lars_J]

What paper risk assessments?  You have a cynical and inaccurate view of vehicle processing.  The question is what does the static fire screen for?  And don't answer that, because anything other than nothing (which is accurate) is eyetar.

  Do you know SpaceX's own hardware better than them? Then go tell them how to do it. They clearly have no clue what they are doing, just running tests for shits and giggles. 

[butters]

the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

Could they be doing it to test their torque-dampening mods?

I don't think they have a way to measure roll torque either on the pad or on the test stand.  Otherwise they would have tuned it out beforehand.

[NotGncDude]

the static fire should be deleted.  WDR's are SOP for most vehicles

That's Oldspace SOP. Newspace does static fires

If so new space wastes more money than "old space."

Nope. A static fire is worth more than several months of paper risk assessments.

What paper risk assessments?  You have a cynical and inaccurate view of vehicle processing.  The question is what does the static fire screen for?  And don't answer that, because anything other than nothing (which is accurate) is eyetar.

I think *you* have an inaccurate view of vehicle processing. A static fire gets you a lot of information (way more than nothing) about the stack you are about to fly very cheaply. Nobody else does it ... because they can't.