SpaceX COTS Demo 2 Updates

[mr. mark]

I'm wondering about the cross technology case of owning Tesla Motors, Solar City and Spacex and how it applies to Dragon Development. Clearly being able to draw technology from his other businesses is a big plus. I'm wondering how much Solar City tech went into the designing of the Solar Arrays for Dragon? Also how does Tesla motors battery use tech affect Dragon power system development.

[go4mars]

I'm wondering about the cross technology case of owning Tesla Motors, Solar City and Spacex and how it applies to Dragon Development. Clearly being able to draw technology from his other businesses is a big plus. I'm wondering how much Solar City tech went into the designing of the Solar Arrays for Dragon? Also how does Tesla motors battery use tech affect Dragon power system development.

I think that Solar City and Tesla are mostly about advancing technologies/industries that will benefit Mars colonization.  Usefulness for Dragon might be just a nice side-benefit.   

[Jim]

I'm wondering about the cross technology case of owning Tesla Motors, Solar City and Spacex and how it applies to Dragon Development. Clearly being able to draw technology from his other businesses is a big plus. I'm wondering how much Solar City tech went into the designing of the Solar Arrays for Dragon? Also how does Tesla motors battery use tech affect Dragon power system development.

none and none.

It is the other way around. 

[iamlucky13]

I'm wondering about the cross technology case of owning Tesla Motors, Solar City and Spacex and how it applies to Dragon Development. Clearly being able to draw technology from his other businesses is a big plus. I'm wondering how much Solar City tech went into the designing of the Solar Arrays for Dragon? Also how does Tesla motors battery use tech affect Dragon power system development.

As far as I know, the companies operate independently, aside from Musk being involved in each. There's other investors involved in each that make sharing like brothers unrealistic.

My reply is generic so far, but to be more specific:

I'd almost guarantee nothing from Solar City went into the solar arrays for Dragon. The requirements for home solar arrays (low cost) are not the same as for space solar arrays (low weight, high efficiency, life, custom frame for deployability). Almost certainly the Dragon panels will come from a company like Spectrolab that specializes in high performance cells.

[iamlucky13]

I think that Solar City and Tesla are mostly about advancing technologies/industries that will benefit Mars colonization.  Usefulness for Dragon might be just a nice side-benefit.   

I think they're mostly about having investments in other industries that interest him. Musk has said nothing that I know of linking either of those companies to Mars ambitions.

[cuddihy]

Elon Musk said in the post flight interview that NASA and Spacex could do additional ground based testing and simulations to reduce the risk of a COTS 2&3 combined mission. Maybe some of this testing is the result of that.

Which is, of course, schedule related and if successful gets to CRS missions that much sooner. 

yep, things to keep in mind--spaceX was the one that wanted(proposed) three COTS flights, SpaceX set(proposed) the schedule, and overall they have had to learn a ton about everything just to move forward. Not bad for a relatively young company and new entrant to spaceflight.
But NASA has also bent over backwards to work with them, as Musk truthfully admits in the post-flight interviews. If they wanted to, NASA could have demanded terms that SpaceX forfeit further milestones if they exceeded their draft schedule by so many months. Fortunately for SpaceX, they didn't, because NASA is full of people who knew better and were interested in seeing SpaceX succeed but also properly skeptical about their prognosticating abilities from a position of ignorance.

[Nomadd]

I personally believe the extra money is politically coded as "risk-reduction" because NASA in conjunction with the COTS partners saw the writing on the wall that the vehicles were behind schedule.  Generally, it was likely accepted by all parties that if more money could be thrown at it, then the "risk" of the vehicles slipping further to the right could be "reduced".   

More importantly, Ares I is so far behind schedule that NASA will now be dependent on these unproven suppliers. If NASA hadn't screwed up on Ares I or if they had chosen one of the COTS proposals using EELVs, then they wouldn't have had to spend extra money on risk reduction now.

 No, they would have had to have spent more money back then. And, they didn't want to always be dependent on "proven" suppliers either. Especially when there's only one.

[mmeijeri]

No, they would have had to have spent more money back then.

Not if they hadn't screwed up on Ares I. And how do you know they would have had to spend more money back then? And even if that's true, it might still have been preferable.

And, they didn't want to always be dependent on "proven" suppliers either. Especially when there's only one.

They could have had a responsible mix of proven and new but unproven suppliers. Instead they went with exclusively unproven suppliers and that includes MSFC.

[beancounter]

No, they would have had to have spent more money back then.

Not if they hadn't screwed up on Ares I. And how do you know they would have had to spend more money back then? And even if that's true, it might still have been preferable.

And, they didn't want to always be dependent on "proven" suppliers either. Especially when there's only one.

They could have had a responsible mix of proven and new but unproven suppliers. Instead they went with exclusively unproven suppliers and that includes MSFC.

This is all beside the point now. 
SpaceX is well on the way of demonstrating the abilities it previously claimed.  Orbital is hardly a newcomer to the space business and is also well on the way by meeting their milestones.
So far as the money goes, both SpaceX and Orbital have put their own money into their development and NASA either way you look at it, are getting a bargin compared with the failed Ares 1 vehicle and the Cx Program.

[Nomadd]

 Maybe I missed it, but would the berthing be at Node2 zenith?
 And, possibly a really dumb question, post shuttle when PMA2 is wherever it winds up, has there ever been a possibility of Dragon boosting the sation from Node 2 forward? Or would Dracos be way to light for that?

[Jorge]

Maybe I missed it, but would the berthing be at Node2 zenith?

No, node 2 nadir, then relocated to zenith.

And, possibly a really dumb question, post shuttle when PMA2 is wherever it winds up, has there ever been a possibility of Dragon boosting the sation from Node 2 forward? Or would Dracos be way to light for that?

Possibility? Perhaps. But it's not being planned; Node 2 forward is planned to remain a docking port (with a CDA replacing PMA-2), not a berthing port. The only Dragon planned to be at that port would be the manned kind.

[yinzer]

I personally believe the extra money is politically coded as "risk-reduction" because NASA in conjunction with the COTS partners saw the writing on the wall that the vehicles were behind schedule.  Generally, it was likely accepted by all parties that if more money could be thrown at it, then the "risk" of the vehicles slipping further to the right could be "reduced".

Agreed.  I suspect the vehicles are also over budget, so it's also reducing the risk of either an embarrassing cost overrun on a firm fixed price contract or of failures due to reduced testing.

With the decisions that have been made and the generally poor execution of policy over the last 5 years, culminating in the "wasted years" of 2009 and 2010, ISS will be facing a very uncertain future here very soon.  One that is even more unclear if the main link in the resupply chain is removed and there is nothing to even *partially* fill the gap that has been created. 

Very much agreed.  They are cutting it very close.

[yinzer]

Elon Musk said in the post flight interview that NASA and Spacex could do additional ground based testing and simulations to reduce the risk of a COTS 2&3 combined mission. Maybe some of this testing is the result of that.

Which is, of course, schedule related and if successful gets to CRS missions that much sooner. 

I forget what the exact milestone payments are, but I think SpaceX is expecting to get $20M each for the COTS 2 and 3 missions.  Each will cost much more to fly than that, so being able to sell one Falcon 9 at a loss instead of two will save them a lot of money.

I suspect the pricing was a way to front-load the development funds while keeping the overall budget under control, but have no factual evidence.

[ugordan]

I forget what the exact milestone payments are, but I think SpaceX is expecting to get $20M each for the COTS 2 and 3 missions.  Each will cost much more to fly than that, so being able to sell one Falcon 9 at a loss instead of two will save them a lot of money.

Not to mention buy only one Dragon. The $20M is the total for both missions. As was stated numerous times, the majority of the money was paid ahead of any flight demonstration. The 3 flights were somewhere around $10M each IIRC.

[Robotbeat]

I forget what the exact milestone payments are, but I think SpaceX is expecting to get $20M each for the COTS 2 and 3 missions.  Each will cost much more to fly than that, so being able to sell one Falcon 9 at a loss instead of two will save them a lot of money.

Not to mention buy only one Dragon. The $20M is the total for both missions. As was stated numerous times, the majority of the money was paid ahead of any flight demonstration. The 3 flights were somewhere around $10M each IIRC.

Reminds me...

Mightn't it be possible that they reuse a Dragon capsule on one of the two remaining COTS demos?

Even if the CRS requirement for new-capsules-only is "set in stone" (and I have reason to believe it isn't), that may not apply to the COTS demos.

[Comga]

I forget what the exact milestone payments are, but I think SpaceX is expecting to get $20M each for the COTS 2 and 3 missions.  Each will cost much more to fly than that, so being able to sell one Falcon 9 at a loss instead of two will save them a lot of money.

From an old list of the COTS milestones I have

Demo 1 Mission                                Sep-08   $5.63M
Demo 2 Readiness Review                  Dec-08  $16.13M
Demo 3 System Critical Design Review  Jan-09  $22.33M
Financing Round 3                            Mar-09  $10.00M
Demo 2 Mission                                Jun-09   $6.13M
Demo 3 Readiness Review                  Jul-09   $12.33M
Demo 3 Mission                                Sep-09   $7.33M

If Demo Flight 2 fulfils all the requirements of Demo Flight 3, not only do they need to build one less rocket, but they should get $42M, This assumes that they have already been paid for Demo 3 SRR and PDR, which were worth $43M.  The milestone payments for the actual flights are comparatively small.

Where is a list of milestones that have been reached and paid?

[go4mars]

Mightn't it be possible that they reuse a Dragon capsule on one of the two remaining COTS demos?

Even if the CRS requirement for new-capsules-only is "set in stone" (and I have reason to believe it isn't), that may not apply to the COTS demos.

True, but if there is a possibility that this next one goes to the ISS, then they'll likely want a new one.  Though I would definately ask if I were Gwen.  Optimizing sidewall heat shield thickness on the extant capsule would be less expensive than a whole new capsule I suspect.

[Nathan]

According to the below link, the Demo3 mission has been deleted.

http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/Missions.php

[Chandonn]

According to the below link, the Demo3 mission has been deleted.

http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/Missions.php

Are you sure?  I see Space-X Demo 2, and Space-X Demo 3 on the line just below.  I believe I heard one of our members say that NASA is reluctant to remove Demo flight 3 at present, even after Demo 1 went so smoothly.

[Nathan]

According to the below link, the Demo3 mission has been deleted.

http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/Missions.php

Are you sure?  I see Space-X Demo 2, and Space-X Demo 3 on the line just below.  I believe I heard one of our members say that NASA is reluctant to remove Demo flight 3 at present, even after Demo 1 went so smoothly.

Written next to the words Spacex demo 3 is the word "deleted" in the life-cycle phase column.
I assume this means it's deleted from the schedule.