SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates

[yg1968]

A lot of questions were about the costs of the COTS program? You don't hear those kind of questions for Shuttle. But I think that the questions about costs are fair given the fact that commmercial companies are said to be cheaper. The criticism about SpaceX not being open enough with reporters were also fair. Gwynne Shotwell, President of SpaceX, admitted that they will try to improve on that.

My Emphasis... Because we all know just how open, honest, and forthcoming the NASA PAO is, right?

Communication, whether in a business, a relationship, or marriage is the number one cause of failure.  We all want to communicate better.  I am sure SpaceX will.  That being said, NASA is not very good at all.  That other website does a great job of providing a historical record on the level of fail of the PAO at NASA.

This is not directed at you yg but me thinking out loud.  If it comes off looking like that, I am sorry.

VR
RE327

I agree with you and that's why there is a need for a forum like this one!

[joshcryer]

Communication, whether in a business, a relationship, or marriage is the number one cause of failure.  We all want to communicate better.  I am sure SpaceX will.  That being said, NASA is not very good at all.  That other website does a great job of providing a historical record on the level of fail of the PAO at NASA.

One thing that journalists are going to have to adapt to is that SpaceX appears to be taking a social networking approach with regards to getting info out. With the static test fire they updated FaceBook and Twitter within a few minutes of the information being available. Heck, I was posting the updates in the static fire thread before any of the major news outlets had any idea what was going on. In that respect SpaceX was being more open than NASA PAO would ever be. I do hope it continues this way in the future. We'll see. It would've been cool to have heard about the delay (due to second stage nozzle anomalies) before it hit the conference, but I think they decided to keep it under wraps until the conference.

[corrodedNut]

I just can't think of what could cause that issue [with the niobium nozzle extension] during shipping or during the test fires

But it isn't "test fired" at all, which may be part of the reason for inspecting it again.

[Retired Downrange]

A lot of questions were about the costs of the COTS program. You don't hear those kind of questions for Shuttle.

a tough question. Jay Barbaree's question about flying over Europe was another tough question.

=============================================
Is it possible that someone here with orbital calculation resources could lay this question of "flying over Europe" to rest?

My first assumption is that the FAA would not issue "paperwork" without considering this possibility.

As I understand rocket trajectories, after launch there is a period where the rocket would have a calculable ballistic trajectory, then a point where (some sort of) orbit will be attained. If all thrust stops at any time prior to orbital speed, the the possible range of impact points can be calculated. ...or if some failures are occurring, one can affect the ballistic trajectory via destruction, not separating, or not firing stage two etc.

...I realize that I am already beyond my level of knowledge of (or perhaps ability to express) the possible scenarios, but my opinion is that Europe is a sufficient distance away that either the capsule or stages will impact in ocean or be in orbit.

Could someone with more knowledge than I take up this question, if it is possible to answer in "layman's" terminology?

Thank You.

[rdale]

My Emphasis... Because we all know just how open, honest, and forthcoming the NASA PAO is, right?

NASA PAO just tweeted that SpaceX may move the launch up to Wednesday, so they have a chance to make up for previous errors

[joshcryer]

But it isn't "test fired" at all, which may be part of the reason for inspecting it again.

Yeah, I know. From my POV I can't think of any reason the anomaly shouldn't have been picked up at post-manufacture QC. Could it have been shipping? Could it have been vibration from the static test fire of the first stage? I'm not knowledgeable about it enough to make a good educated guess.

[rdale]

Maybe not that one. But the question about what would happen if Dragon failed and fell back on earth was a tough question. Jay Barbaree's question about flying over Europe was another tough question.

Every time a shuttle landing takes them over land instead of water, those questions are asked too. I guess I'm not getting the point?

[ugordan]

I just can't think of what could cause that issue [with the niobium nozzle extension] during shipping or during the test fires

But it isn't "test fired" at all, which may be part of the reason for inspecting it again.

For those of you who aren't clear on this, the big niobium nozzle extension is only attached to the main engine nozzle during vehicle integration, most likely at the Cape hangar. There's no way to test fire the engine at sea level with that thing on (unless you pay for a high altitude chamber). The flow separation because of overexpansion at sea level would very likely destroy the nozzle extension. Instead, just the "basic" engine is fired, which includes some section of the nozzle that's regeneratively cooled like in the normal Merlin 1c. Beyond that, the niobium extension comes in.

The fact the nozzle extension could not be tested on the ground was actually one of the higher risks on the maiden flight of F9.

[corrodedNut]

But it isn't "test fired" at all, which may be part of the reason for inspecting it again.

Yeah, I know. From my POV I can't think of any reason the anomaly shouldn't have been picked up at post-manufacture QC. Could it have been shipping? Could it have been vibration from the static test fire of the first stage? I'm not knowledgeable about it enough to make a good educated guess.

From what I've read, just welding the stuff and forming it into the proper shape is a pain in the ol'incorrect.

[ugordan]

From my POV I can't think of any reason the anomaly shouldn't have been picked up at post-manufacture QC. Could it have been shipping?

Who said it had to be the nozzle itself and not the weld or whatever that holds it to the MVac and is only applied at the Cape?

Could it have been vibration from the static test fire of the first stage? I'm not knowledgeable about it enough to make a good educated guess.

The way I understood it, the problem was picked up in the photos taken during vehicle closeout, before any static fires or WDRs.

[joshcryer]

Sorry for not being clear guys, I am aware that second stage was not test fired.

edit: ugordan, thanks for clearing that up, so could shipping have been the issue? Or could it have cropped up just as some anomaly in the process as it sat for however long between when they made it and caught it during the inspection?

[Malderi]

Is it true that actually replacing the nozzle extension could still mean a flight this weekend? As in, bringing the rocket back down to the hangar, separating the stages, installing the new nozzle extension, re-stacking and re-integrating everything... and it just adds a couple days to the schedule?

[ugordan]

SFN reports from NASA twitter: "NASA says launch could occur as soon as Wednesday now, but they expect more details this afternoon."

http://twitter.com/NASA/status/11884309283606528

[rdale]

SFN reports from NASA twitter: "NASA says launch could occur as soon as Wednesday now, but they expect more details this afternoon."

That's not a SFN report -

My Emphasis... Because we all know just how open, honest, and forthcoming the NASA PAO is, right?

NASA PAO just tweeted that SpaceX may move the launch up to Wednesday, so they have a chance to make up for previous errors

[Antares]

That's really really something you would have expected QC to catch, imho.

By the same token, it was missed on Delta III flight two, and the RL-10 has more flight history than all of SpaceX.

I look at it as a positive, QC found something and they are taking the time to go back to it.

A little apples and oranges.  SpaceX does these things late in the flow.  IIRC, there was a very similar issue with the Kestrel nozzle a few years ago.  The RL10 issue was an erosion/misinterpretation of requirements.

[ugordan]

A little apples and oranges.  SpaceX does these things late in the flow.

Quite. I can understand reviewing just the static fire data this late in the game, but the vehicle has been sitting integrated for what - months?

http://twitpic.com/3dk7i2

[JohnWT]

Maybe not that one. But the question about what would happen if Dragon failed and fell back on earth was a tough question. Jay Barbaree's question about flying over Europe was another tough question.

Every time a shuttle landing takes them over land instead of water, those questions are asked too. I guess I'm not getting the point?

Would the shuttle come down in a stable, heat shield first configuration if it went out of control?  My understanding is that Dragon would, hence I was a bit surprised at Gwynne Shotwell's answer that she thought it would probably break up.

[Gary NASA]

First lesson might be not to compare Dragon with the Orbiters. The Orbiters are massive seven+ crew carrying vehicles with a massive payload upmass and downmass.........not a capsule.

[Robotbeat]

Maybe not that one. But the question about what would happen if Dragon failed and fell back on earth was a tough question. Jay Barbaree's question about flying over Europe was another tough question.

Every time a shuttle landing takes them over land instead of water, those questions are asked too. I guess I'm not getting the point?

Would the shuttle come down in a stable, heat shield first configuration if it went out of control?  My understanding is that Dragon would, hence I was a bit surprised at Gwynne Shotwell's answer that she thought it would probably break up.

Hopefully break up. Funny that passive stability may now be a drawback in this little corner case?

[ugordan]

Funny that passive stability may now be a drawback in this little corner case?

I was thinking the same thing. What's safer for those inside isn't necessarily safer for those on the ground...