SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[Jim]

Right then, I know some people will think this goes off on a tangent, but - as noted - I honestly think the line in the presser stood out and I've used that, along with a quote we gained from SpaceX recently, to align.

Bottom line is it makes the article more interesting than just the slip angle.

Dragon ISS flight slips – SpaceX determined to return US crewed access to LEO
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/01/dragon-slips-spacex-determined-return-us-crewed-access-leo/

Don't shout at me if you don't like it

The longer SpaceX is in operation the more it sounds like Gwen Shotwell / Ken Bowersox and the less it sounds like Elon Musk... and I like it.

I believe Bowersox left and is only a consultant

[rcoppola]

Debating how many others have used that line is besides the point.
SpaceX, in a way, has the collective credibility of commercial space riding on them as they are first up. Very real implications for future funds and support are at stake. Let alone the future viability of domestic ISS re-supply.

And certainly all of this comes down to the big show. Crewed access to LEO. It is smart business setting the right unequivocal tone for this and all future missions. It may have been said before, but when SpaceX says it, it takes on an added weight because it shows a level of commitment and maturity from a new entrant into a zero tolerance failure environment.

[Jim]

Who would say that Spacex wouldn't say or do that?  It is just common business sense.  It isn't a revelation from God, it is SOP for non shuttle missions.

This isn't a software company missing a deadline and sending out buggy code.

[Chris Bergin]

Only ever seen it previously with Shuttle and will be using one from LeRoy Cain. Feel free to link me up to "the many times before from others".

Every launch campaign that there is, especially ones with problems.  Juno, MSL, MER, SIRTF, GRAIL, etc

You're disagreeing where there is no disagreement, but I'm going to stand by ground on the rationale for what I used.

"an absolute standard throughout the launch industry" - from the article, because we all know that is the case (at least the US side), so that covers the tiny threat someone might have assumed only SSP did it beforehand.

However, that is not what I asked of you. I asked you to provide said quotes. Cited examples. Even just out of interest. It's no use to anyone to include the "Oh and Jim said" when we have a SSP quote, from someone most people have heard of, documented and on the record, which is also more relevant leading into the HSF reference quote from SpaceX for the article's flow.

I know you know what I mean, and I know you're only saying it's not been the unique approach of SSP, but no one was saying any different. However, we have Mr Cain on quote, we have SpaceX on quote via the presser, there's the rationale.

[Namechange User]

They also used the "we will launch when the vehicle is ready" - which is very Shuttle FRR style, and should earn them a lot of respect.

Agreed 100%. While some will use slips as ammo to attack SpaceX, for me, it gives me more confidence that they know what they're doing and will succeed.

While no doubt they should launch only when ready, it is different than Shuttle in my opinion. 

In Shuttle, or even with others, you know why the launch is slipping.  In the Shuttle-era there were threads out to discuss the problem, articles, etc.  Everyone, more or less, knew where things stood.  In this case we do not know why or really when they will try. 

So, it's just yet another delay.  And while I respect they have a job to do and want to get it right, personally I find it slightly annoying.  Given all the promises they have made about how great they are and how different they are, how they have arrogantly belittled others in the profession, etc they really don't talk about their issues, of which there clearly have been many since their launch tempo has not been as advertised and this flight is years later than planned. 

While they don't have to share whatever the latest issue is if they choose not to, that is certainly their right, I'm not ready to give them kudos just because they made a statement. 

They wanted Shuttle out of the picture.  They wanted to be in the "limelight" and the "successor".  It's past time for them to deliver on those promises because everything is in the balance. 

[docmordrid]

"Past time?"

It's time when they're ready, not before, and as you say it's their call to share outside of NASA's reporting duties. It's also been what, a few hours? Takes my wife longer than that to choose an outfit for a movie.

[Space Pete]

While no doubt they should launch only when ready, it is different than Shuttle in my opinion. 

In Shuttle, or even with others, you know why the launch is slipping.  In the Shuttle-era there were threads out to discuss the problem, articles, etc.  Everyone, more or less, knew where things stood.  In this case we do not know why or really when they will try. 

So, it's just yet another delay.  And while I respect they have a job to do and want to get it right, personally I find it slightly annoying.  Given all the promises they have made about how great they are and how different they are, how they have arrogantly belittled others in the profession, etc they really don't talk about their issues, of which there clearly have been many since their launch tempo has not been as advertised and this flight is years later than planned. 

While they don't have to share whatever the latest issue is if they choose not to, that is certainly their right, I'm not ready to give them kudos just because they made a statement. 

They wanted Shuttle out of the picture.  They wanted to be in the "limelight" and the "successor".  It's past time for them to deliver on those promises because everything is in the balance. 

In the interest of not being a "fanboi", while I respect SpaceX for taking their time, I also very much agree with your statement. It's time for SpaceX to either prove what they've been saying, or stop talking.

[manboy]

Dragon ISS flight slips – SpaceX determined to return US crewed access to LEO
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/01/dragon-slips-spacex-determined-return-us-crewed-access-leo/

"SpaceX’s next Falcon 9 flight with the Dragon spaceship – a mission which is expected to dock with the International Space Station (ISS)"
I know this is a small thing but it will actually be berthing to the station not docking.

[Comga]

Over on Heavens-above it looks like the ISS did a reboost a few days ago, which was not on anik's schedule or at best earlier than the reboost that was recently added.  I don't know if this was related to dodging the Iridium debis fragment.

How much does this affect rendezvous planning?

Delta R is about 2 km.  Simple linear calculations say that the orbit would be about two seconds longer.  That's a minute slip every day or so, and with 22 days before the original date for COTS-2/3, that would be ~20 minutes, or >5000 km.

This is NOT a reference to the recently announced delay.  It is just an inquiry.

[RocketJack]

Only ever seen it previously with Shuttle and will be using one from LeRoy Cain. Feel free to link me up to "the many times before from others".

Every launch campaign that there is, especially ones with problems.  Juno, MSL, MER, SIRTF, GRAIL, etc

You're disagreeing where there is no disagreement, but I'm going to stand by ground on the rationale for what I used.

"an absolute standard throughout the launch industry" - from the article, because we all know that is the case (at least the US side), so that covers the tiny threat someone might have assumed only SSP did it beforehand.

However, that is not what I asked of you. I asked you to provide said quotes. Cited examples. Even just out of interest. It's no use to anyone to include the "Oh and Jim said" when we have a SSP quote, from someone most people have heard of, documented and on the record, which is also more relevant leading into the HSF reference quote from SpaceX for the article's flow.

I know you know what I mean, and I know you're only saying it's not been the unique approach of SSP, but no one was saying any different. However, we have Mr Cain on quote, we have SpaceX on quote via the presser, there's the rationale.

The irritation is due to the fact that SpaceX very publicly stated that they were ready to go in November, but NASA made them wait. Those at NASA knew this was untrue and that they were having problems but stayed quiet about it. It is nothing more than typical problems with every new launch vehicle - performance issues, trajectory issues, sensor issues, hardware problems. They all add up after a while. The problem is that SpaceX does not come clean about their issues and those in charge who set policy - do so assuming that SpaceX is able to do something no one else has been able to do. That policy has affected an entire segment of the US national technological base negatively.

[Jorge]

Over on Heavens-above it looks like the ISS did a reboost a few days ago, which was not on anik's schedule or at best earlier than the reboost that was recently added.  I don't know if this was related to dodging the Iridium debis fragment.

How much does this affect rendezvous planning?

Delta R is about 2 km.  Simple linear calculations say that the orbit would be about two seconds longer.  That's a minute slip every day or so, and with 22 days before the original date for COTS-2/3, that would be ~20 minutes, or >5000 km.

This is NOT a reference to the recently announced delay.  It is just an inquiry.

It'll change the phase angle at launch. Depending on the Falcon insertion altitude and available Dragon prop reserves, it may constrain the dates to which the launch may be rescheduled, or require more phasing time after launch.

[Chandonn]

The irritation is due to the fact that SpaceX very publicly stated that they were ready to go in November, but NASA made them wait. Those at NASA knew this was untrue and that they were having problems but stayed quiet about it. It is nothing more than typical problems with every new launch vehicle - performance issues, trajectory issues, sensor issues, hardware problems. They all add up after a while. The problem is that SpaceX does not come clean about their issues and those in charge who set policy - do so assuming that SpaceX is able to do something no one else has been able to do. That policy has affected an entire segment of the US national technological base negatively.

Actually, we do not know that there is a "coverup" (i.e. desire not to "come clean") regarding SpaceX hardware or software.  All we know is that there is a condition which precludes the previously announced NET (No Earlier Than) launch date.  It may be related to the recent ISS DAM which negated the need for a reboost for the next Progress.  I certainly would expect that to have an impact on the mission planning (launch and rendezvous timing, et al).  Also, there may be another issue which has cropped up recently, which we aren't privy to.  Again, no "coverup".

SpaceX may well have been ready to fly in November, had the Soyuz launch failure not occurred.

[robertross]

"Past time?"

It's time when they're ready, not before, and as you say it's their call to share outside of NASA's reporting duties. It's also been what, a few hours? Takes my wife longer than that to choose an outfit for a movie.

Been a while longer: (just picked this from one of Chris' excellent articles as an example)

"The next Dragon mission, Dragon C2, is currently scheduled for launch on 12 April next year; the fiftieth anniversary of the first manned spaceflight and the thirtieth anniversary of the first Space Shuttle launch. This will also be the next Falcon 9 launch. Dragon C1 is also the fifteenth and final orbital launch of the year to be made by the United States."

That was dated December 8th, 2010

Well past time. Not that I'm pushing them, but there have been many promises thrown around, and some people enjoy the refreshing thought of realistic promises & schedules.

[Lee Jay]

Someone should really teach Elon what "under-promise and over-deliver" means.  He seems to have his poles reversed on that one.

I'm not belittling what they've accomplished, just how their public pronouncements have been so overly optimistic.

[Jorge]

The irritation is due to the fact that SpaceX very publicly stated that they were ready to go in November, but NASA made them wait. Those at NASA knew this was untrue and that they were having problems but stayed quiet about it. It is nothing more than typical problems with every new launch vehicle - performance issues, trajectory issues, sensor issues, hardware problems. They all add up after a while. The problem is that SpaceX does not come clean about their issues and those in charge who set policy - do so assuming that SpaceX is able to do something no one else has been able to do. That policy has affected an entire segment of the US national technological base negatively.

Actually, we do not know that there is a "coverup" (i.e. desire not to "come clean") regarding SpaceX hardware or software.  All we know is that there is a condition which precludes the previously announced NET (No Earlier Than) launch date.  It may be related to the recent ISS DAM which negated the need for a reboost for the next Progress.  I certainly would expect that to have an impact on the mission planning (launch and rendezvous timing, et al).

Nope, this was in the works before that.

  Also, there may be another issue which has cropped up recently, which we aren't privy to.

Or perhaps not so recently.

SpaceX may well have been ready to fly in November, had the Soyuz launch failure not occurred.

Nope.

[rdale]

How much does this affect rendezvous planning?

Per the ISS Increment 30 thread, this was a debris avoidance maneuver -- however this replaces the reboost that was necessary for Progress next week. So no net impact.

[kevin-rf]

How much does this affect rendezvous planning?

Per the ISS Increment 30 thread, this was a debris avoidance maneuver -- however this replaces the reboost that was necessary for Progress next week. So no net impact.

Is the delta V the same? Or will an additional reboost be needed?

[QuantumG]

Someone should really teach Elon what "under-promise and over-deliver" means.  He seems to have his poles reversed on that one.

I'm not belittling what they've accomplished, just how their public pronouncements have been so overly optimistic.

I like to call this the XCOR moto.. one should note how well known XCOR is for having the most advanced reusable rocket technology in the world today. Quiet and methodical works for their goals because their approach is incremental and self-sustaining. SpaceX's approach is rock-star Silicon Valley style and staying in the limelight is critical to attracting customers and investment. Which is better? I'm sure the owners of both companies think their way is best or they wouldn't be doing it.

[rdale]

How much does this affect rendezvous planning?

Per the ISS Increment 30 thread, this was a debris avoidance maneuver -- however this replaces the reboost that was necessary for Progress next week. So no net impact.

Is the delta V the same? Or will an additional reboost be needed?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25462.msg850206#msg850206

[Robotbeat]

Someone should really teach Elon what "under-promise and over-deliver" means.  He seems to have his poles reversed on that one.

I'm not belittling what they've accomplished, just how their public pronouncements have been so overly optimistic.

I like to call this the XCOR moto.. one should note how well known XCOR is for having the most advanced reusable rocket technology in the world today. Quiet and methodical works for their goals because their approach is incremental and self-sustaining. SpaceX's approach is rock-star Silicon Valley style and staying in the limelight is critical to attracting customers and investment. Which is better? I'm sure the owners of both companies think their way is best or they wouldn't be doing it.

XCor is nowhere close to as well-known as SpaceX. And the few people who know that there are suborbital spaceplanes know only about SpaceShipOne/Two for the most part.

I have a lot of respect for XCor, but I wouldn't characterize them as well-known.