SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates

[butters]

I think the consideration WRT hyper loading is the safety of the ground crew. They don't want that stuff loaded in the spacecraft on the ground for longer than necessary, even if Dragon is designed to store the propellants for a long duration on orbit.

I suspect they'll do the hyper loading before the static fire, then rollback and rollout for launch in roughly the 7-day timeframe that they've previously mentioned (don't know where ugordon got the 4-5 days from). If the vehicle hasn't rolled out by the evening of Dec 1, then I doubt they're launching on Dec 7.

So if they're going for this window, they need to commit to hyper loading within a week from now. If the situation with Shuttle is causing uncertainty about recovery assets on Dec 7/8, then they may not have positive "flight rationale" to proceed.

[wintermuted]

With the thanksgiving holiday this week which extends through the weekend for many who travel, full work capacity will only really be available again next monday. That only leaves a week and a day before the 7th for static fire and launch prep so a shift to the left is unlikely.

Also, maybe a minor difference but they've said publicly more than once how important re-usability is, so recovering the first stage for the purpose of evaluating reuse is probably as much a reason if not more compared with NDT or trimming operating margins.

[ugordan]

(don't know where ugordan got the 4-5 days from).

Fixed that for you.

Anyway: http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/status.html

If liftoff remains set for Dec. 7, engineers plan an on-the-pad test firing Dec. 3 of the rocket's nine first stage engines.

[beancounter]

Under 2 weeks now and no sign of a delay announcement.  Could this be the real deal?
Jim's silent also!!

[ugordan]

Jim's silent also!!

Yes, since his November prediction also fell through. 

[Jim]

my prediction was an NET

[beancounter]

Good point.

Still no delay notification... Any new prediction?

[pathfinder_01]

Good point.

Still no delay notification... Any new prediction?

Thursday was an holiday in the US, and some businesses take Friday off too. You probably wont hear anything till Monday at the earliest.

[docmordrid]

SFN is talking about Discovery going on Dec 17 at the earliest, but that it could well slip to February or March.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/101124prcb/index3.html

[sdsds]

Personal opinion:  this coming week (beginning Monday, Nov. 29), Elon Musk needs to do "the leadership thing."  SpaceX isn't betting the company on this one launch, but nothing else they have attempted has been as vital.  It's not just the cult of personality:  SpaceX clearly has that but in this case it's more.  The organization is not that large; Musk can have near-perfect visibility into what's going on.  Unless there's internal dissent based on hard fact he needs to rally the troops and push them on to fly the mission with the vehicle they have, before STS-133 launches.  A successful mission now, complete to capsule recovery, will lock in the perception that SpaceX is changing the essence of human spaceflight.

[ugordan]

Unless there's internal dissent based on hard fact he needs to rally the troops and push them on to fly the mission with the vehicle they have, before STS-133 launches.

With all of their delays so far, why should it make any difference whether they launch before or after STS-133?

[Lars_J]

Personal opinion:  this coming week (beginning Monday, Nov. 29), Elon Musk needs to do "the leadership thing."  ...  Unless there's internal dissent based on hard fact he needs to rally the troops and push them on to fly the mission with the vehicle they have, before STS-133 launches.

What the heck? Why does it matter who launches first? ST-133 was scheduled to fly before COTS 1 for quite a while, and that didn't signify the end of the world.

I'd love to see it launch ASAP, but COTS1 should launch when it's ready. Not before. To do otherwise just to launch before another vehicle, *that* would be a failure of leadership.

[Comga]

SFN is talking about Discovery going on Dec 17 at the earliest, but that it could well slip to February or March.

It's not jus SFN, but NASA explicitly stating STS-133 is NET 12/17

NASA SETS SHUTTLE DISCOVERY'S LAUNCH FOR NO EARLIER THAN DEC. 17

WASHINGTON -- NASA managers have targeted space shuttle Discovery's launch for no earlier than Dec. 17. Shuttle managers determined more tests and analysis are needed before proceeding with the STS-133 mission.
....
The next status review by the PRCB will be Thursday, Dec. 2. If managers clear Discovery for launch on Dec. 17, the preferred time is approximately 8:51 p.m. EST.

For STS-133 crew and mission information, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/shuttle 

That gives about ten days between the SpaceX launch and the earliest possible Shuttle launch.  To me this says that any new SpaceX delay will be for internal reasons, not range conflict or SRB retrieval ship scheduling, but just barely.

Fitting the Shuttle mission in before the Year End Roll Over still requires resolution of multiple issues.  SpaceX may have opportunities throughout December.

Thursday's NASA announcement is only five days before the NET launch date for Falcon 9.  Talk about down to the wire!

[tigerade]

There's no word of delay and Dec 7th is less than two weeks away.  I think they will be do a static test fire this coming week, and then a launch attempt the week after.  I really haven't heard anything of delays.

[sdsds]

If SpaceX has evidence either Falcon or Dragon is not ready, they shouldn't launch.  That was the "internal dissent based on hard fact" bit.  But this is not a good moment for unfounded timidity.  The availability of a launch opportunity before STS-133 is serendipitous, but U.S. spaceflight is at a crossroads.  If they truly want to be a company that changes the course of history they should fix their little problems, seize the day, and light their candle.

I do not mean to belittle the effort required to resolve whatever issues remain with the launch vehicle and payload, and fully realize that heroic 80 hour work weeks are not sustainable indefinitely.  I do however mean to suggest that "now" would be a good time for the organization as a whole to muster that level of effort.

The company would survive a mission failure, but if in situations like this they do not push forward and make the attempt, they will lose their magical lustre and become -- as some insinuate is quickly becoming the case -- just one more piece of the OldSpace infrastructure.

[butters]

I think that, all things considered, a successful mission is more important than launching before STS-133. Elon has said multiple times (paraphrasing): there's always more testing that could be done, but at a certain point there are diminishing returns, and that's when it's time to launch.

I can't imagine that SpaceX is suffering from "no-go fever". If they don't take the 12/7-8 launch window (and it isn't because of conflicts with the recovery boat), then they're still having some problems with Dragon.

It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to slip the launch date again. It would look worse if they launched their new spacecraft and it failed to perform. The mainstream media probably won't pick up a slipped launch date. They'll definitely pick up the failure of a commercial spacecraft planned to partially take over from NASA.

[MP99]

If SpaceX has evidence either Falcon or Dragon is not ready, they shouldn't launch.  That was the "internal dissent based on hard fact" bit.  But this is not a good moment for unfounded timidity.  The availability of a launch opportunity before STS-133 is serendipitous, but U.S. spaceflight is at a crossroads.  If they truly want to be a company that changes the course of history they should fix their little problems, seize the day, and light their candle.

I do not mean to belittle the effort required to resolve whatever issues remain with the launch vehicle and payload, and fully realize that heroic 80 hour work weeks are not sustainable indefinitely.  I do however mean to suggest that "now" would be a good time for the organization as a whole to muster that level of effort.

The company would survive a mission failure, but if in situations like this they do not push forward and make the attempt, they will lose their magical lustre and become -- as some insinuate is quickly becoming the case -- just one more piece of the OldSpace infrastructure.

I have the opposite view - they need to launch whenever they can to maximise their chances of success. If that's later, so be it.

cheers, Martin

[AlexCam]

I have the opposite view - they need to launch whenever they can to maximise their chances of success. If that's later, so be it.

cheers, Martin

Agreed, you only launch when you are absolutely sure to have tackled all issues in detail and are 100% confident you can't do more.

[Mike_1179]

How is anything 100% assured?  You can't model everything on the ground, or only at impractical costs.  Instead, you choose to model or test things which are similar to or representative of the real world situation. 

Passing these gives higher confidence, but you'll never get "100% confidence".  Deciding when you've tested appropriately is not something that comes quickly; it's not as simple as "we'll just test everything more until we're totally sure everything is fine".

[sdsds]

they need to launch whenever they can to maximise their chances of success.

SpaceX needs to launch COTS Demo 1 when the success of that flight will maximize the likelihood of SpaceX building a successful business.

To see this, look at the extremes:  would it be prudent for SpaceX to slip the flight three weeks if doing so substantially increased the probability of a successful flight?  Sure.

Three months, though?  Maybe.  But what about three years?  Surely you agree that in what is ultimately a business decision, other factors come into play eventually?