Author Topic: SpaceX COTS Demo 2 Updates (Read 448915 times)

corrodedNut · « **Reply #120 on:** 04/09/2011 03:50 pm »

Looks like more first stage testing today:

http://twitter.com/SpaceXer

ugordan · « **Reply #121 on:** 04/09/2011 10:26 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 04/09/2011 03:50 pm

Looks like more first stage testing today:

30 seconds.

corrodedNut · « **Reply #122 on:** 04/11/2011 07:14 pm »

Official confirmation:

http://twitter.com/SpaceXer

"We tested all 9 engines for 30 seconds, great success!"

beancounter · « **Reply #123 on:** 04/12/2011 01:42 am »

Quote from: ugordan on 04/09/2011 10:26 pm

Quote from: corrodedNut on 04/09/2011 03:50 pm
Looks like more first stage testing today:

30 seconds.

Guess this is going to become all to commonplace as time goes on. If you're ramping up from 5 F9 flights to 10 that's 45 to 90 engines and if you then add FH which run 27 engines per flight! Things are certainly going to get noisy in McGreggor. Not sure I'd want to live there. Maybe move underground for noise reduction but you'd probably get shaken (not stirred) around the same as the last Japanese or Kiwi (New Zealand) quakes!!

SpacexULA · « **Reply #124 on:** 04/12/2011 03:07 am »

Quote from: beancounter on 04/12/2011 01:42 am

Guess this is going to become all to commonplace as time goes on. If you're ramping up from 5 F9 flights to 10 that's 45 to 90 engines and if you then add FH which run 27 engines per flight! Things are certainly going to get noisy in McGreggor. Not sure I'd want to live there. Maybe move underground for noise reduction but you'd probably get shaken (not stirred) around the same as the last Japanese or Kiwi (New Zealand) quakes!!

No worse that it was in the old days.

Small population there, and they where proud of what they where. 5 will get you 10 they will be proud of being the home of the Falcon 9 also.

Lars_J · « **Reply #125 on:** 04/12/2011 03:10 am »

beancounter - the sound won't be so bad for the locals. The first full F9 stage test that caused such a ruckus was amplified by very special atmospheric conditions. If they avoid those, these short test will be far less intrusive.

Antares · « **Reply #126 on:** 04/12/2011 03:15 am »

Eventually they will get their repeatability down and they'll stop stage tests. Or they won't, and they won't be as cheap as they want to be.

telomerase99 · « **Reply #127 on:** 04/12/2011 05:17 am »

In the falcon heavy press release it was stated that combined cots 2-3 would not fly before Nov Dec 2011.

mr. mark · « **Reply #128 on:** 04/12/2011 02:31 pm »

On a side note it's interesting to me that after the shuttle retires all cargo vehicles going to the ISS and going to space for that matter will be unmanned/ automated, Spacex's Dragon included. If anything that's quite a spaceflight achievement and something I'm not sure was ever mentioned on the forums here.

Nomadd · « **Reply #129 on:** 04/12/2011 02:40 pm »

Quote from: mr. mark on 04/12/2011 02:31 pm

On a side note it's interesting to me that after the shuttle retires all cargo vehicles going to the ISS and going to space for that matter will be unmanned/ automated, Spacex's Dragon included. If anything that's quite a spaceflight achievement and something I'm not sure was ever mentioned on the forums here.

Uh....Everybody here has known that for years. The term "Cargo vehicle" kind of gives it away.

mr. mark · « **Reply #130 on:** 04/12/2011 02:53 pm »

Well the shuttle, of course, has delivered cargo being a manned vehicle. I think we take things for granted sometimes. Being somewhat older, it's very interesting to me that all cargo vessels will now be automated. Way back when I was a kid the idea of all vehicles being automated would have blown us away. Shows how far we have come. But, this topic is for another forum.

david1971 · « **Reply #131 on:** 04/12/2011 02:58 pm »

If COTS 2 is mid-July, and a combined COTS2/3 is Nov/Dec, what does that tell us about what still needs to be developed?

In other words, what piece of hardware/software/whatever is introducing a four-month pole into things?

docmordrid · « **Reply #132 on:** 04/12/2011 03:14 pm »

Don't forget the need to re-train the ISS crew - their mission changes too.

Antares · « **Reply #133 on:** 04/12/2011 04:10 pm »

Quote from: david1971 on 04/12/2011 02:58 pm

If COTS 2 is mid-July, and a combined COTS2/3 is Nov/Dec, what does that tell us about what still needs to be developed?

In other words, what piece of hardware/software/whatever is introducing a four-month pole into things?

It's the difference between a mission that doesn't touch the Station and one that does. There's a whole lot more stuff that NASA wants to verify.

MP99 · « **Reply #134 on:** 04/12/2011 04:46 pm »

Quote from: david1971 on 04/12/2011 02:58 pm

If COTS 2 is mid-July, and a combined COTS2/3 is Nov/Dec, what does that tell us about what still needs to be developed?

In other words, what piece of hardware/software/whatever is introducing a four-month pole into things?

Going to ISS in COTS 2 sounded like a great idea when the implication was that COTS 2 would fly as scheduled, dock with ISS months earlier than planned, and if there were any problems they could still meet the original deadline by flying COTS 3 to it's original schedule.

ISTM a flight to dock with ISS around the date originally promised for COTS 3, is actually COTS 3. Basically, SpaceX are proposing to fly COTS 3 without the risk reduction that would have been provided by flying COTS 2 in mid-July.

It seems strange NASA would go for this when they are trying to reduce risk in the COTS programme.

ISTM the $64M question is when SpaceX could fly a plain, vanilla COTS 2 with no intention to dock with ISS? Is it behind schedule? Is NASA being pushed to decide between flying COTS 3 without COTS 2 first (extra risk) and a delay in the startup of CRS (which has it's own risks for the station)?

cheers, Martin

douglas100 · « **Reply #135 on:** 04/12/2011 06:16 pm »

Quote from: mr. mark on 04/12/2011 02:53 pm

Well the shuttle, of course, has delivered cargo being a manned vehicle. I think we take things for granted sometimes. Being somewhat older, it's very interesting to me that all cargo vessels will now be automated. Way back when I was a kid the idea of all vehicles being automated would have blown us away. Shows how far we have come. But, this topic is for another forum.

The very first space station cargo vessel, Progress 1, was automated, and that was away back in 1978!

Antares · « **Reply #136 on:** 04/12/2011 07:49 pm »

Quote from: MP99 on 04/12/2011 04:46 pm

ISTM a flight to dock with ISS around the date originally promised for COTS 3, is actually COTS 3. Basically, SpaceX are proposing to fly COTS 3 without the risk reduction that would have been provided by flying COTS 2 in mid-July.

It seems strange NASA would go for this when they are trying to reduce risk in the COTS programme.

ISTM the $64M question is when SpaceX could fly a plain, vanilla COTS 2 with no intention to dock with ISS? Is it behind schedule? Is NASA being pushed to decide between flying COTS 3 without COTS 2 first (extra risk) and a delay in the startup of CRS (which has it's own risks for the station)?

There's lots of intuitive win in these rhetorical questions. Combining the flights saves SpaceX tens of millions of dollars (one flight set of hardware) and brings CRS to active status sooner, if all goes well.

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #137 on:** 04/12/2011 07:55 pm »

Quote from: Antares on 04/12/2011 07:49 pm

Quote from: MP99 on 04/12/2011 04:46 pm
ISTM a flight to dock with ISS around the date originally promised for COTS 3, is actually COTS 3. Basically, SpaceX are proposing to fly COTS 3 without the risk reduction that would have been provided by flying COTS 2 in mid-July.

It seems strange NASA would go for this when they are trying to reduce risk in the COTS programme.

ISTM the $64M question is when SpaceX could fly a plain, vanilla COTS 2 with no intention to dock with ISS? Is it behind schedule? Is NASA being pushed to decide between flying COTS 3 without COTS 2 first (extra risk) and a delay in the startup of CRS (which has it's own risks for the station)?

There's lots of intuitive win in these rhetorical questions. Combining the flights saves SpaceX tens of millions of dollars (one flight set of hardware) and brings CRS to active status sooner, if all goes well.

I think the point was that NASA gave SpaceX additional funding, in order to bring CRS to active status sooner, but that isn't happening. The date of the COTS 3 demo flight is basically unchanged, and CRS doesn't happen until Q2 2012.

mr. mark · « **Reply #138 on:** 04/13/2011 03:04 pm »

An interesting aricle with a sense of urgency..

"What we've been told by NASA is that if we don't reach the space station by the end of this year, there's a risk that they will have to de-man the space station next year. We've got to be sure that we get to the space station".

http://www.space.com/11373-spacex-rockets-dragon-capsule-nasa-nss27.html

Danderman · « **Reply #139 on:** 04/13/2011 10:32 pm »

Over on the NK forum, they are using a July 15, 2011 date for COTS 2, but no backup for the assignment of that date.