It just seems like companies like Virgin and SpaceX tend go quiet for months at a time (from a publicity standpoint) then resurface in the news with a seemingly random update.Given the frustration of the space industry that the public have grown callous to space-flight, surely every effort should be made by companies like SpaceX to re-popularise space-flight through relentless PR?
Quote from: MP99 on 09/14/2011 08:33 pmQuote from: beancounter on 09/14/2011 05:37 amDidn't know SpaceX had lots of bugs to work out. Where does this come from or is this purely speculative like so much other stuff here? Bugs implies problems with things not working as they're designed, not ongoing development and testing which I'm sure SpaceX is still undertaking.Not stating anything specific about SpaceX, but testing is done to find and eliminate bugs.If you develop a complex new system and your testing is not finding bugs, then your testing is at fault. All complex systems contain bugs, and that includes mature systems that have been through a lot of testing and in use for years (ref the recent Soyuz launcher failure after decades of operation).cheers, MartinDo you think SpaceX updates the public on testing etc on a consistent enough basis? If you check their site, the last post was made in early August. Surely given the situation with the Russian Progress vehicle and production halt, you'd hope that SpaceX would have a view on how it affects them, and would thus update the public?It just seems like companies like Virgin and SpaceX tend go quiet for months at a time (from a publicity standpoint) then resurface in the news with a seemingly random update.Given the frustration of the space industry that the public have grown callous to space-flight, surely every effort should be made by companies like SpaceX to re-popularise space-flight through relentless PR?Anthony
Quote from: beancounter on 09/14/2011 05:37 amDidn't know SpaceX had lots of bugs to work out. Where does this come from or is this purely speculative like so much other stuff here? Bugs implies problems with things not working as they're designed, not ongoing development and testing which I'm sure SpaceX is still undertaking.Not stating anything specific about SpaceX, but testing is done to find and eliminate bugs.If you develop a complex new system and your testing is not finding bugs, then your testing is at fault. All complex systems contain bugs, and that includes mature systems that have been through a lot of testing and in use for years (ref the recent Soyuz launcher failure after decades of operation).cheers, Martin
Didn't know SpaceX had lots of bugs to work out. Where does this come from or is this purely speculative like so much other stuff here? Bugs implies problems with things not working as they're designed, not ongoing development and testing which I'm sure SpaceX is still undertaking.
FWIW, if NASA, 100% public-funded, is reluctant to talk about problems, how much more a part-commercial entity like SpaceX?
If they are choosing between 1 more engineer or tech vs. another PR person, I would generally prefer them to take the directly productive employee. It isn't like the Canadian Space Agency where a large part of its budget goes toward self-promotion. Excess G&A can sink a company.
No. Nags get hated.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 09/14/2011 07:07 pmI assume this "dry run" would have been performed with the actual ISS crew that will be performing the actual rendezvous and berthing operations. Even without the Progress issue, those guys wouldn't have been on orbit yet, would they ? I thought this was a test using ground simulators. At least that was my initial impression after reading the Orbital thread.If it was to be done with the new crew to arrive in Sept, then yes you would have to do it on the ground which defeats part of the purpose of a Joint Test of an operation where you try to make the dry run as realistic as possible with all the problems such as comminications with the ISS and other operational participants can occur. The test as shown in the breifing referenced ISS not a crew specification.
I assume this "dry run" would have been performed with the actual ISS crew that will be performing the actual rendezvous and berthing operations. Even without the Progress issue, those guys wouldn't have been on orbit yet, would they ? I thought this was a test using ground simulators. At least that was my initial impression after reading the Orbital thread.
But anyway, I guess I'm just a bit of an enthusiast so I can't get enough of this stuff. I completely take your points that it doesn't make sense for a public company to continually update the public.
Quote from: MrAnthonyDR on 09/15/2011 03:07 pmBut anyway, I guess I'm just a bit of an enthusiast so I can't get enough of this stuff. I completely take your points that it doesn't make sense for a public company to continually update the public.I don't know what you mean by that. SpaceX is not a "public company" in the sense that term is used in the US.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/15/2011 10:17 amNo. Nags get hated.I'm sorry I do not know what a 'Nag' is. I'm new to this forum.
So if I'm reading this right, Spacex's launch cannot occur at best until February.That will also set back Orbital's launch of Cygnus as well which was planned for January. If this is correct there is no guarantee that Space's Dragon will be first to the ISS with cargo.http://www.spacenews.com/launch/110914-soyuz-failure-delays-launches.html
I still wonder how salty weather affects the COTS 2/3 hardware at the Cape. The first, second stage and Dragon could be sitting there for months before they are actually put into service. I still think about that corroded nut on the first Falcon 1 test flight that sank that mission.
I assumed NASA had the appropriate simulators to test ISS communications and other operations before the actual flight. The astronauts do practice SSRMS operations somewhere, right ? Every future crew will need the ability to grapple visiting vehicles, whether that is the Dragon, Cygnus, or HTV. I thought I read somewhere that the astronauts would be getting somewhere close to 100 hours of training in Berthing operations.
