SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[QuantumG]

one should note how well known XCOR is for having the most advanced reusable rocket technology in the world today.

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.

Uhhh.. yes, that's the point.

[Comga]

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

Because, by definition, the Progress and Dragon arrivals are separated in time, a single burn can't do the phasing for both, unless there is some additional degree of freedom that has escaped me.  The question is how large is this differential phasing vs the Dragon capacity, not an easy question to answer.

Edit: The Expedition 30 thread says "The purpose of the reboost was a DAM (Debris Avoidance Maneuver), to avoid a conjunction with Object 34984, and to set up phasing for the Progress M-14M/46P launch on 01/25. This DAM replaces the reboost that had been planned for 01/18."

The date of the reboost is the second free parameter.

That says that they adjusted the phasing for the Progress but doesn't discuss the phasing for Dragon.  Because it was a few days early, it should have done slightly "less phasing" but for a longer time before Dragon.  I would guess that the effect was small, but would need to work with some numbers.

[Jorge]

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

Because, by definition, the Progress and Dragon arrivals are separated in time, a single burn can't do the phasing for both, unless there is some additional degree of freedom that has escaped me.  The question is how large is this differential phasing vs the Dragon capacity, not an easy question to answer.

True, dat. NASA doesn't even know what Dragon's phasing limits are. NASA doesn't have a "need-to-know" because, by agreement, ISS reboosts will not be performed for ATV, HTV, or COTS/CRS phasing. Only Soyuz/Progress. It's up to SpaceX to do the phasing analysis and figure out which launch dates result in rendezvous on which flight day, and therefore which dates they can support.

[Robotbeat]

one should note how well known XCOR is for having the most advanced reusable rocket technology in the world today.

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.

Uhhh.. yes, that's the point.

Gotcha.

[Antares]

It is nothing more than typical problems with every new launch vehicle - performance issues, trajectory issues, sensor issues, hardware problems.

None of my sources indicate it's a launcher issue.

[Lars_J]

Not surprising. This Dragon is far more complicated than the C1 Dragon.

[manboy]

"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.

Wasn't that before they chose to combine the flights?

[woods170]

"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.

Wasn't that before they chose to combine the flights?

Yes. Several months before actually.

[ugordan]

The indefinite delay quality of this announcement is what reminds me of the F9-01 FTS saga all over again.

[woods170]

The indefinite delay quality of this announcement is what reminds me of the F9-01 FTS saga all over again.

I'm lost in acronym hell. What does 'FTS' stand for again?

[ugordan]

Flight termination system.

[woods170]

Ah! Thank you!

[ChefPat]

The indefinite delay quality of this announcement is what reminds me of the F9-01 FTS saga all over again.

I'm lost in acronym hell. What does 'FTS' stand for again?

Acronym Finder

[kevin-rf]

Hmmm... Foxnews just had an interview with former NASA astronaut Tom Jones concerning the delay. He did not sound very positive (the spaceX fans will most likely go crazy if they get hold of the transcript) and hinted at an April launch. Of course this is Foxnews, and I doubt he still has any real insight. 

[watermod]

So will the next Orbital test be to the ISS? 
Will it be before SpaceX's?
I see this on the launch schedule:

Date: February +
Mission: Orbital Sciences Corporation
Launch Vehicle: Taurus II
Launch Site: Wallops Flight Facility
Launch Pad: 0A
Description: The Taurus II is scheduled for a test flight under NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services agreement with the company.

[kevin-rf]

So will the next Orbital test be to the ISS? 

No, Orbital's Antares first flight is a test flight and will not go near the ISS. Honestly, the closest the first Antares may get is when the ISS overflies the launch pad as it crosses the sky.

http://www.orbital.com/Antares/

[kevin-rf]

Hmmm... Foxnews just had an interview with former NASA astronaut Tom Jones concerning the delay. He did not sound very positive (the spaceX fans will most likely go crazy if they get hold of the transcript) and hinted at an April launch. Of course this is Foxnews, and I doubt he still has any real insight. 

Video of interview up for what it is worth: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/americas-newsroom/index.html?playlist_id=86909&intcmp=features#/v/1397654804001/first-private-rocket-launch-to-space-station-delayed/

[yg1968]

Jones doesn't seem to be a fan of commercial crew or of Obama:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4344602

After the shuttle orbiters retire late this year, American astronauts will rent seats on Russian rockets headed to the ISS. We won't field an alternative spacecraft for five years or more. The president will instead farm out the nation's access to low Earth orbit to commercial firms. None of the rockets NASA has contracted to deliver cargo to the ISS has flown, and betting our nation's sole access to space on industry's ability to replicate fifty years of NASA experience on the fly is unwise. NASA should fly a new crewed spacecraft as quickly as possible, then move to commercial firms once they have a proven record of reliable cargo services.

[Namechange User]

Jones doesn't seem to be a fan of commercial crew or of Obama:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4344602

After the shuttle orbiters retire late this year, American astronauts will rent seats on Russian rockets headed to the ISS. We won't field an alternative spacecraft for five years or more. The president will instead farm out the nation's access to low Earth orbit to commercial firms. None of the rockets NASA has contracted to deliver cargo to the ISS has flown, and betting our nation's sole access to space on industry's ability to replicate fifty years of NASA experience on the fly is unwise. NASA should fly a new crewed spacecraft as quickly as possible, then move to commercial firms once they have a proven record of reliable cargo services.

What's the point of linking this two year old article here in this thread now?

You may not like his tone or his perscription but even today, nearly two years later, this statement still pretty much holds true. 

[apace]

First, Tom Jones don't telling any surprise. And for me, he's fair with SpaceX and the delay. Of course, the video animation was wrong, because it was from the Falcon 9r promo video and not about the COTS2/3 mission. But this is more a Foxnews failure than of him. The only real problem are the more than optimistic timelines SpaceX is telling the public.