SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates

[JohnFornaro]

That said, I still can't think how you'd go about refurbishing and certifying a used first stage for flight.

Uhhh.... Very carefully?

[hop]

As I stated in another thread, you can't just take the turbo, run it and say ok we'll fly that bit!!

Why not?

Discussed extensively here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21923.180

[beancounter]

That said, I still can't think how you'd go about refurbishing and certifying a used first stage for flight.

Uhhh.... Very carefully?

Yeh, quite.  But seriously, well more, I guess at least for the first couple of dozen, you'd strip everything down and do a bunch of NDT.  Then maybe even push them to distruction to see what breaks first.
Then someone's got to certify them.  For NASA contracts, I guess that's NASA but other commercial contracts, I think SpaceX would have to somehow be able to demonstrate continuing integrity in the reused bits and pieces to their customers. 
Guess the incentives would be reduced flight costs and compelling test data.

[mr. mark]

Is it getting clearer that Spacex won't launch until next year? They can't launch until after shuttle Discovery because of the recovery boat situation and recovery requires a 7 day turnaround after the shuttle launch. Also, Spacex still needs to do the test fire. Can they test fire at pad 40 with Discovery on it's launch pad?  With the possibilty that managers may postpone the Discovery launch until Christmas time, It seems the odds are getting slim for a December 7th time frame.

[Lars_J]

Yes they can test fire with Discovery on the pad. Other launches have occurred with Shuttles on pads.

[ugordan]

They can do the static fire with rockets on other pads, it's those other pads that would potentially have to be evacuated of personnel that day. It remains to be seen how long it will take SpaceX to be ready to do that. Obviously, Dragon is, again, the pacing item here.

[go4mars]

Any chance that SpaceX will launch before Discovery?

[Ben the Space Brit]

Any chance that SpaceX will launch before Discovery?

I imagine that if the delay gets too crazy (-133 being moved to CY2011) then SpaceX will just launch in the next available slot.  That all depends on assessment of the fix to the SSET though.

[simonbp]

Recovery is a lot easier than reuse... I have no doubt SpaceX will be able to pull off first stage recovery. Maybe not this time, but eventually.

They did actually recover a first stage from a Gemini-Titan launch. It broke in half, so it's only the top part that made it, and the part where it broke was kind caved in. Still, it's not unreasonable that sufficiently strengthened, a minimally-modified first stage could be recovered intact.

I've got a few pictures of that stage from when it was in the public area of the museum in Huntsville (it's now back in storage); I'll see if I can find where I put them...

[stockman]

Any chance that SpaceX will launch before Discovery?

Discovery just got bumped to NET dec 17th - It will be interesting to hear if SpaceX will go withtheir current Date in Early december as they could be off the pad well before that date thus freeing up the recovery ships with time to spare...

[Comga]

So F9-Dragon launch is NET Dec 7 or 8, and STS-133 launch is NET Dec 17.  That's only nine or ten days.

Somewhere it said that SpaceX can't launch F9-Dragon until seven days after a Shuttle launch because of the time needed to sail back, cycle, and relaunch the SRB recovery ships.

How long BEFORE the Shuttle launch would SpaceX have to launch to garauntee that the recovery ships would be ready to retrieve the SRBs?  Does the increased downrange spashdown distance of the F9 first stage, compared to the SRBs, increase the time?  Has NASA asked for any additional time margin? 

It would be hard to imagine NASA risking a Shuttle launch delay because someone had rented the recovery ships.  (Imagining a parent with hands on hips asking for car keys when a teenager misses cerfew)

[butters]

Jim always says that reserving the range is first come first serve, but that doesn't mean that the recovery boats work the same way. SpaceX has the range for 12/7, and Shuttle can't just bump them off, but if SpaceX can't reserve the recovery boat, then they'll almost certainly stand down.

If SpaceX already has the recovery boat "reserved" (or however that works) for their launch window, then can Shuttle really intervene to keep those boats at port?

SpaceX wouldn't be able to slip their launch into a window that conflicts with the recovery assets of an existing Shuttle window, so why should Shuttle be able to slip into a window that conflicts with an existing SpaceX window?

One can argue that the Shuttle launch is more "important" or faces tighter launch window constraints with beta angle and other ISS traffic, but I don't buy it. And if they argue that SpaceX has to stand down because Shuttle can't fly over the new year, that would be quite laughable and flat-out embarrassing for a program that lived through the Y2K frenzy and yet failed to address this problem.

[MP99]

It would be hard to imagine NASA risking a Shuttle launch delay because someone had rented the recovery ships.  (Imagining a parent with hands on hips asking for car keys when a teenager misses cerfew)

Recovery is not essential to the mission.

I'm intrigued whether SpaceX would forgo a before-Shuttle launch date just because the SRB recovery boat is unavailable because of an imminent Shuttle launch? IE just accept no attempt at first stage recovery on this mission.

cheers, Martin

[MP99]

If SpaceX already has the recovery boat "reserved" (or however that works) for their launch window, then can Shuttle really intervene to keep those boats at port?

It's Shuttle infrastructure, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that Shuttle would be it's priority.

cheers, Martin

[ugordan]

This speculation assumes STS-133 is the only thing determining when COTS-1 will fly. Here's a thought - if SpaceX really are ready, what is preventing them from moving the launch date to the left now that Shuttle is definitely off the table? One such obvious answer would be: because they're not ready yet.

[butters]

Recovery is not essential to the mission.

I'm intrigued whether SpaceX would forgo a before-Shuttle launch date just because the SRB recovery boat is unavailable because of an imminent Shuttle launch? IE just accept no attempt at first stage recovery on this mission.

cheers, Martin

Recovery is not essential to which mission?

SpaceX will not launch if they do not have the recovery boat. FWIW, I guarantee it. They really want that stage back to analyze and optimize the design. Recovery is not essential to the mission, but they will not sacrifice the opportunity.

Is recovery essential to STS-133? I'm pretty sure that the SRB segments will not be used on STS-135 and certainly not on STS-134. Could they be reused for a future 5-seg booster? I don't know. But SSP will probably consider recovery essential just because that's their SOP.

[Jim]

Is recovery essential to STS-133?

Yes, for postflight inspection

[butters]

This speculation assumes STS-133 is the only thing determining when COTS-1 will fly. Here's a thought - if SpaceX really are ready, what is preventing them from moving the launch date to the left now that Shuttle is definitely off the table? One such obvious answer would be: because they're not ready yet.

You could be right. They're still to do their planned static fire. That would keep them from moving to the left.

They wouldn't have wanted to do their static fire while the Shuttle team was feverishly working at the pad to try to make their 12/3 launch window, since the LC39A would have to be evacuated for the F9 static fire. Now that Shuttle is delayed, mostly for off-pad rather than on-pad work, SpaceX could go ahead with their static fire if they are actually ready to do so.

Do we know whether they plan to load Dragon propellants before or after the static fire? If they load before, then they might not want to go ahead with the static fire unless they know they have their launch opportunity with recovery boat.

[butters]

Is recovery essential to STS-133?

Yes, for postflight inspection

Yeah. Same rationale as SpaceX. Neither will launch without recovery assets.

[ugordan]

They're still to do their planned static fire. That would keep them from moving to the left.

Hell, their plan was always to have the static fire some 4-5 days before launch and we're still more than two weeks away from Dec 7th so there would be enough room to move to the left.

Those two-weeks-before are coincidentally about the time I would expect a new delay announcement. Would be nice to be shown otherwise, though.

Do we know whether they plan to load Dragon propellants before or after the static fire?

I'm trying to think of a reason why they'd do a firing with an empty Dragon. Why wouldn't have they done the firing during the wet dress rehearsal then? Dragon is supposed to be space-worthy for extended periods of time so I'd assume hypergol storage in the tanks wouldn't pose the same problems as with Delta II 2nd stage tanks/valves.

On the other hand, they do appear to be paranoid (maybe the wrong word... let's say "extra cautious") about this so a firing with an empty Dragon, rollback to the hangar, fueling, final flight readiness review, rollout and launch isn't really implausible.