SpaceX COTS Demo 2 Updates

[iamlucky13]

Shrink-wrapping large objects for shipping is labor intensive. I've done it. Industrial shrink wrap isn't exactly cheap, either. We're talking about probably $200+ in wrapping material and a couple guys spending several hours on man-lifts and/or ladders running it over and around the stage, and the associated risk that one of them will bump into the tank hard enough to dent it.

SpaceX is planning to be flying multiple stages per year for the foreseeable future. A dedicated cover probably is very cost effective in the long term.

You should see some of the customized carts Boeing and other airplane manufacturers use for moving parts a few hundred feet around the factory. They spend quite a bit of money on custom transporters to make parts easy to handle and protect them from damage.

[rsnellenberger]

Looked at some of the other pictures up on KSC's media page, especially the large version of KSC-2011-5598 -- there's a bunch of masking tape being used to seal the seams of that front shell.  Looks more like a quick-and-simple solution than anything else... no gold-plating in sight.

[AnalogMan]

The question of the combined COTS 2/3 came up (once more) during today's STS-135 post MMT briefing, and was answered by Mike Suffredini (ISS Program Manager).  This is my transcript:

Robert Pearlman:
"Where does the decision lie right now in terms of allowing SpaceX to combine their 2nd and 3rd flights to fly directly to the space station?"

Mike Suffredini:
"We haven't made a final decision but we're pretty close.  As far as technically can we combine the flights and feel comfortable, that you can do the demonstration steps planned for both of the missions in one mission, and get the delta testing done on the ground to make up for what you may not have gotten on the first demo flight? - we're there, technically we're good.

The other part that we had to look at was the assessment of [...] the last flight of the Falcon 9 that we have worked with SpaceX, and we didn't see anything of large concern there.  So we're having some final discussions about the actual flight itself that would occur ... we'll call it the combined flight ... but the next flight - and there's some secondary payloads on there, or a secondary payload on there that they'd like to fly, so that's a factor so we're having those discussions now.  But we'll conclude that here in the next few weeks.

But the planning is all assuming that we're flying the next flight to ISS - that's what we'll be doing, so we're not losing any time with regard to being prepared for that flight. And its probably in ... later in November launch date that we'll go for it - that hasn't been finalised yet."

[Jason1701]

The question of the combined COTS 2/3 came up (once more) during today's STS-135 post MMT briefing, and was answered by Mike Suffredini (ISS Program Manager).  This is my transcript:

Robert Pearlman:
"Where does the decision lie right now in terms of allowing SpaceX to combine their 2nd and 3rd flights to fly directly to the space station?"

Mike Suffredini:
"We haven't made a final decision but we're pretty close.  As far as technically can we combine the flights and feel comfortable, that you can do the demonstration steps planned for both of the missions in one mission, and get the delta testing done on the ground to make up for what you may not have gotten on the first demo flight? - we're there, technically we're good.

The other part that we had to look at was the assessment of [...] the last flight of the Falcon 9 that we have worked with SpaceX, and we didn't see anything of large concern there.  So we're having some final discussions about the actual flight itself that would occur ... we'll call it the combined flight ... but the next flight - and there's some secondary payloads on there, or a secondary payload on there that they'd like to fly, so that's a factor so we're having those discussions now.  But we'll conclude that here in the next few weeks.

But the planning is all assuming that we're flying the next flight to ISS - that's what we'll be doing, so we're not losing any time with regard to being prepared for that flight. And its probably in ... later in November launch date that we'll go for it - that hasn't been finalised yet."

Sounds like the two ORBCOMMS may be causing trouble.

[baldusi]

Concern, not necessarily trouble. NASA is not used to share missions, apparently. Not that anything is bad with that. But they surely want to make sure. And that means more analysis.

[Norm38]

A November launch for a combined flight sounds pretty good from a PR standpoint.  What good does it do to try and launch early and compete with the last Shuttle flight for media time?  Comes off a bit negative.  Better to give the old girls their swan song and then let the Falcon9 come in for resupply.  The Shuttle just topped the ISS off, November makes for a welcom cargo delivery that isn't the least bit necessary.  Perfect for a trial run.

[Geron]

A November launch for a combined flight sounds pretty good from a PR standpoint.  What good does it do to try and launch early and compete with the last Shuttle flight for media time?  Comes off a bit negative.  Better to give the old girls their swan song and then let the Falcon9 come in for resupply.  The Shuttle just topped the ISS off, November makes for a welcom cargo delivery that isn't the least bit necessary.  Perfect for a trial run.

Now Norm... I just have to say. Your post above is a quality post. I really enjoyed it. I found it amusing and interesting at the same time which around here happens very rarely. I might surmise from your post Norm, that in your life you have been identified as being "the clever one" or put in the smart kids math group, maybe went on to get a phd in something abstract.
You are probably a pretty interesting guy norm. If only we were next door neighbors in real life we could have some interesting conversations over chess and/or morning coffee. As it stands, we will certainly never meet, and thats just the new world we live in... isn't it:)

Maybe Dragon will make the world smaller one day.

[robertross]

A November launch for a combined flight sounds pretty good from a PR standpoint.  What good does it do to try and launch early and compete with the last Shuttle flight for media time?  Comes off a bit negative.  Better to give the old girls their swan song and then let the Falcon9 come in for resupply.  The Shuttle just topped the ISS off, November makes for a welcom cargo delivery that isn't the least bit necessary.  Perfect for a trial run.

Oh trust me...it's necessary 

[mr_magoo]

Two Dragons and a Cygnus should make for an interesting winter.

3/3 and people can relax a bit.

0/3 and the heat is on.

[robertross]

Two Dragons and a Cygnus should make for an interesting winter.

3/3 and people can relax a bit.

0/3 and the heat is on.

1/3 or 2/3 and the heat is on. Heck, even 3/3 and the heat is still on.
PROVEN TRACK RECORD. That's what's required now.

[Comga]

The question of the combined COTS 2/3 came up (once more) during today's STS-135 post MMT briefing, and was answered by Mike Suffredini (ISS Program Manager).  This is my transcript:

Robert Pearlman:
"Where does the decision lie right now in terms of allowing SpaceX to combine their 2nd and 3rd flights to fly directly to the space station?"

Mike Suffredini:
"We haven't made a final decision but we're pretty close.  As far as technically can we combine the flights and feel comfortable, that you can do the demonstration steps planned for both of the missions in one mission, and get the delta testing done on the ground to make up for what you may not have gotten on the first demo flight? - we're there, technically we're good.

The other part that we had to look at was the assessment of [...] the last flight of the Falcon 9 that we have worked with SpaceX, and we didn't see anything of large concern there.  So we're having some final discussions about the actual flight itself that would occur ... we'll call it the combined flight ... but the next flight - and there's some secondary payloads on there, or a secondary payload on there that they'd like to fly, so that's a factor so we're having those discussions now.  But we'll conclude that here in the next few weeks.

But the planning is all assuming that we're flying the next flight to ISS - that's what we'll be doing, so we're not losing any time with regard to being prepared for that flight. And its probably in ... later in November launch date that we'll go for it - that hasn't been finalised yet."

Is this how Mr. Suffredini usually talks?  It sounds so tentative an indefinite. 

Other than the secondary payloads, he doesn't offer a single reason for not approving the combined flight, although he doesn't directly state that NASA's approval is the last piece to fall in place.  Those payloads should be dispensed long before Dragon approaches the ISS.  From the limited information I have seen on the last flight (graphs of rates, accelerations, etc from ignition to floating on the ocean) there were no anomalies that showed up in the motions, although these reports do not include electrical and comm issues, and none are even hinted at.  He also doesn't offer a criterion for when the approval will come, except to imply that the decision is not critical, from his perspective.

Are the ORBCOMMS dropped off at a higher altitude, requiring the Dragon to go up and then come down for ISS rendesvous?  Can anyone see how this is more of an issue than approaching from below.  I would assume that the flight path would patch back into the standard approach from behind and below.  Any reason not to?

[docmordrid]

F9 2nd stage re-starts so why not just drop off Dragon, then light it up again to take the ORBCOMMs to their orbit (IIRC 775km)?

[SpacemanInSPACE]

F9 2nd stage re-starts so why not just drop off Dragon, then light it up again to take the ORBCOMMs to their orbit (IIRC 775km)?

Doesn't the dragon separate from the 2nd stage before berthing with the ISS?

[dunderwood]

I believe that's the point docmordrid is making.  The upper stage can do an orbital insertion burn, separate from Dragon, and then burn a second time before dropping off the Orbcomms.  Dragon will perform it's own maneuvering to get to the ISS, so the upper stage and Orbcomms don't get anywhere near the ISS. 

[SpacemanInSPACE]

I believe that's the point docmordrid is making.  The upper stage can do an orbital insertion burn, separate from Dragon, and then burn a second time before dropping off the Orbcomms.  Dragon will perform it's own maneuvering to get to the ISS, so the upper stage and Orbcomms don't get anywhere near the ISS. 

Where are the orbcomm satellites stored? I presumed they resided in the Dragon's trunk.

[docmordrid]

Where are the orbcomm satellites stored? I presumed they resided in the Dragon's trunk.

If this is any indication....

http://www.spaceflightservices.com/MHome.php

http://www.spaceflightservices.com/DocFiles/SpaceFlight_Services_Secondary_PL_Planner_guide.pdf

[Garrett]

Other than the secondary payloads, he doesn't offer a single reason for not approving the combined flight, ...

Why should he have to? The initial deal was for 3 demo flights. The onus is on SpaceX and NASA to come to a common understanding on why flights 2 and 3 should be combined. NASA should not be required to explain themselves if they decide to keep the flights separate. 

[Comga]

Other than the secondary payloads, he doesn't offer a single reason for not approving the combined flight, ...

Why should he have to? The initial deal was for 3 demo flights. The onus is on SpaceX and NASA to come to a common understanding on why flights 2 and 3 should be combined. NASA should not be required to explain themselves if they decide to keep the flights separate. 

He doesn't "have to" of course.  It just leaves his statements logically incomplete.  He doesn't "have to" say anything, but he he states that they are still in the process of approving the combined flights, without defining the focus of that process.  It makes it sound like NASA is fumbling around and just indecisive.  This isn't to say that NASA is fumbling, just that Suffredini's statements lack a narative of how they will get to approval or disapproval.

[Jason1701]

Other than the secondary payloads, he doesn't offer a single reason for not approving the combined flight, ...

Why should he have to? The initial deal was for 3 demo flights. The onus is on SpaceX and NASA to come to a common understanding on why flights 2 and 3 should be combined. NASA should not be required to explain themselves if they decide to keep the flights separate. 

He doesn't "have to" of course.  It just leaves his statements logically incomplete.  He doesn't "have to" say anything, but he he states that they are still in the process of approving the combined flights, without defining the focus of that process.  It makes it sound like NASA is fumbling around and just indecisive.  This isn't to say that NASA is fumbling, just that Suffredini's statements lack a narative of how they will get to approval or disapproval.

NASA has the luxury of taking the approval process very slow. It's not at all on the critical path. Whether NASA approved the combined mission last January or this October makes no difference -- SpaceX won't fly until November at the earliest.

[Comga]

F9 2nd stage re-starts so why not just drop off Dragon, then light it up again to take the ORBCOMMs to their orbit (IIRC 775km)?

That gets back to the question of how many starts or restarts can be performed with the Merlin Vacuum engine.  The Orbcomm satellites don't have propulsion, that I know of, so they need to be dropped into their final circular orbit.  If they do a two burn trajectory to inject Dragon into its rendezvous course for the ISS, it might require a total of four burns to then get the second stage into a circular 775 km orbit.  That does not sound possible.