SpaceX COTS Demo 2 Updates

[rcoppola]

I agree with Jim based on the fact that the Russian press has to sensationalize and take many things about space out of context.

Now if the astronauts office said the same, I would be very worried...

Well let's see what NASA and/or SpaceX have to say about this and whether they will confirm this as is, or say it was taken out of context. Because frankly this doesn't feel right to me.

[rcoppola]

"Or is this different, because this cargo vehicle also happens to be on course to become a crewed vehicle as well?"

Welcome to business 101. Most small business owners have run into these same roadblocks with civic governments and other corporations. Create roadblocks, delays that way those peoples upfront's bottom line is not affected. Sometimes it's legally based sometimes financial but the result is the same, delay or obstruct. 

Being a small business owner I understand what you are saying. However, in the context of being a small business and working on behalf of a very important and influential entity (NASA) who's own vested interest is in your success, I'd like to know what NASA's response is to this on behalf of THEIR business partner.

[mr. mark]

This is how hobbyspace.com has seen it.... article title


"Briefs: Roscosmos resists the Dragon; Space policy misc.
The current commercial crew service tries to slow down the competition"

Personally I feel rathered stupid because with my small business experience and success with dealing with civic governments and their requirement as well as business competition, I did not see this coming. Let's hope Jim is right but, I smell a rat and it's a pretty big one.

[Chris Bergin]

Yeah, as Jim says, it's just the Russians being professional. I'd expect the same from the US side if a commercial Russian vehicle was preparing to dock for the first time.

That's why there will be FORs and all sorts of reviews, which is what we started to see (dates and references etc) on documentation (my post yesterday). I'll have an article on that next week.

[rcoppola]

Yeah, as Jim says, it's just the Russians being professional. I'd expect the same from the US side if a commercial Russian vehicle was preparing to dock for the first time.

That's why there will be FORs and all sorts of reviews, which is what we started to see (dates and references etc) on documentation (my post yesterday). I'll have an article on that next week.

Thanks Chris, I'll defer to your thoughts on this for now, but perhaps you are aware if this has been the case on all the other cargo crafts that have first ventured towards the ISS?

[docmordrid]

What's so hard to understand? Russia is doing what it always does - protect its own self interest. No amount of wishful thinking should cause us to lose sight of that fact.

This is what happens when you get in bed with them - just ask the Europeans who have become dependent on Russian natural gas etc.

[Chris Bergin]

Yeah, as Jim says, it's just the Russians being professional. I'd expect the same from the US side if a commercial Russian vehicle was preparing to dock for the first time.

That's why there will be FORs and all sorts of reviews, which is what we started to see (dates and references etc) on documentation (my post yesterday). I'll have an article on that next week.

Thanks Chris, I'll defer to your thoughts on this for now, but perhaps you are aware if this has been the case on all the other cargo crafts that have first ventured towards the ISS?

I know they had a boatload of reviews for HTV and that's a JAXA vehicle. I bet if a media outlet had asked Roscosmos at roughly the same period, they'd of gotten the same "we won't allow it to dock until all the reviews have been passed" (paraphrased).

Never heard a bad word about Dragon from the NASA or Russian side, for what it's worth. The NASA guys I've spoken to think its the best thing since sliced bread, so I don't foresee any issues with either combining C2 and C3, or IMMT approval for allowing it to dock, especially after such a good debut on C1..........until someone tells me different (documentation) at which time I'll say so

[mr. mark]

 The russian story is now running worldwide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russian-space-agency-wont-let-private-us-spacecraft-dock-with-iss-until-reliability-proven/2011/04/22/AFmf9QPE_story.html

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/04/monopolizing-is.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gwqkGCR7xfe1lPXZh_GCnA4FwwGw?docId=6641232

note from nasawatch.com -  Keith's note: What a great way to continue a monopoly on access to the ISS. Curiously, the "digital" Soyuz was allowed to dock despite its ongoing problems.



 

[Lee Jay]

stop, stop, stop

This is getting blown out proportion.

They aren't doing anything malicious.   They are just restating the obvious.  Dragon won't dock until all the analysis and testing is done.

That's how I read it:  "Russia will not permit the first U.S. commercial spacecraft to dock with the International Space Station (ISS) unless its safety is fully tested..."  To which I say, "duh???".

Think about how we'd (rightly) jump all over them if they said the opposite:  "You can dock even before the safety analysis and testing is complete."  To which I would say, "forget that!".

[Nomadd]

 Uh....How do you 100% prove it without docking? Build a phony space station for it to practice on?

[Lee Jay]

Uh....How do you 100% prove it without docking? Build a phony space station for it to practice on?

You don't 100% prove anything.

You do ground analysis and testing, and flight testing before docking until you are satisfied you've done about all you can practically do and that the probability of failure given that analysis and testing has been reduced to an acceptable level.

[Robotbeat]

Uh....How do you 100% prove it without docking? Build a phony space station for it to practice on?

You don't 100% prove anything.

You do ground analysis and testing, and flight testing before docking until you are satisfied you've done about all you can practically do and that the probability of failure given that analysis and testing has been reduced to an acceptable level.

To get that last level of assurance, cost of testing will expand to fill as much money as you have to spend on it, no matter how much money you have. This tendency needs to be kept in check, or costs will inflate.

This isn't happening for no reason, though. Safety is important.

[Chandonn]

stop, stop, stop

This is getting blown out proportion...

Cue ominous conspiracy theory music...   


Also, consider all the hubub about the proposed Soyuz flyaround on both STS-133 and STS-134.  Now again consider the Mir incident, as another poster stated earlier.  Thuis is all standard safety stuff.  The Russian Press makes a big deal out of this stuff all the time.

[SpacexULA]

Uh....How do you 100% prove it without docking? Build a phony space station for it to practice on?

Yes

[hop]

OK, I understand that, but wouldn't they just keep in consultation with NASA? Why would they need to see the data as opposed to letting NASA speak for them?

Same reason NASA wants to see data from Russian vehicles. The impacts (no pun intended!) on the *entire* station have to be evaluated.

Has every cargo ship's performance data been subjected to actual Russian review and approval before docking?

Yes. Per above, it is *required* for safe operation of the station.

[rcoppola]

OK, I understand that, but wouldn't they just keep in consultation with NASA? Why would they need to see the data as opposed to letting NASA speak for them?

Same reason NASA wants to see data from Russian vehicles. The impacts (no pun intended!) on the *entire* station have to be evaluated.

Has every cargo ship's performance data been subjected to actual Russian review and approval before docking?

Yes. Per above, it is *required* for safe operation of the station.

Thanks. Then I guess that clears it up. I have only one final question. Has there ever been a situation where NASA and Roscosmos have not agreed on a data set with regards to ISS and if they have not or do not, who is the arbiter between them?

[jongoff]

Uh....How do you 100% prove it without docking? Build a phony space station for it to practice on?

Yes

I got to see that facility a few weeks ago. Really darned impressive... I wonder though if SpaceX would be willing to pay LM to use it. (I'd be surprised, even though it's a great facility that would help a lot).

~Jon

[jabe]

with the # of possible commercial crew vehicles being developed LM should set up a side business to rent it out..or make it an adult game room
jb

[hop]

Thanks. Then I guess that clears it up.

I should make it clear I have no inside knowledge of this situation. My statement is based on the fact that many things (structural loads, attitude constraints, plume impingement, RFI, to name a few) need to detailed engineering analysis for the whole station. The Russians are best qualified to this it for their part of the station, and they get a go/no go based on that. The same is true for NASA for a vehicle that docks on the RS.

and if they have not or do not, who is the arbiter between them?

AFAIK there is no arbiter. I assume it would escalate up to the heads of the agencies and then their bosses in the national governments. Realistically speaking, all the partners want a space station, so they have to works stuff out.

In this case, I don't see any dispute. The post shuttle logistics crunch hurts the Russians too. I expect they will be very happy to barter some down-mass on Dragon, the sooner the better.

[Antares]

I stopped reading when I got to .ru

Suggest others do the same.