Author Topic: SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2) (Read 787805 times)

Prober · « **Reply #160 on:** 09/18/2011 08:05 pm »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 09/18/2011 04:28 pm

Quote from: mmeijeri on 09/18/2011 04:10 pm
How much would SpaceX get paid for COTS 2?

The SAA milestone for Mission 2 pays $6.133M. The bulk of the funding for the mission comes from reviews and tests before the flight.

now im confused. This http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100611-spacex-drop-dragon-flight.html

says......he expects NASA to pay SpaceX for all three flights — valued at $10 million each under an amended COTS agreement

Plus if you add in the fees for the two Sat. payload launches you break even on costs ?

krytek · « **Reply #161 on:** 09/18/2011 08:16 pm »

They get paid for the combined COTS 2+3, the same amount they would've been paid if they did COTS 2/3 and COTS 3/3 separately.

Jorge · « **Reply #162 on:** 09/18/2011 08:23 pm »

Quote from: cambrianera on 09/18/2011 03:08 pm

Objectives of COTS 2 were:
Dragon would approach within 10 kilometers of the space station and exercise its radio cross-link to demonstrate the ability of the station’s crew to receive telemetry from the capsule and send commands.
(incidentally from http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100611-spacex-drop-dragon-flight.html)

I can't see the way SPACEX flying this on their own.

You're right. SpaceX could fly the next Dragon without going to ISS if they wanted, but then they wouldn't get credit for completing the Demo 2 objectives.

That bears repeating: Demo 2 and Demo 3 are sets of test objectives, not flights. That's why it's possible to combine them onto one flight in the first place.

Jorge · « **Reply #163 on:** 09/18/2011 08:26 pm »

Quote from: yg1968 on 09/18/2011 02:55 pm

Why should SpaceX waste $50 million on COTS2. Orbital doesn't have a mission equivalent to COTS 2 planned; so why should SpaceX have one.

Each company negotiated its demo objectives with NASA separately. Orbital's design uses more legacy hardware and its test program relies more heavily on ground testing, analysis, and flight tests of analogs (they share quite a bit of hardware with HTV, which is already flying). SpaceX belongs to the "build a little, fly a little" school of testing and so that's what they wanted. They made their bed, now they can lie down in it.

Jorge · « **Reply #164 on:** 09/18/2011 08:29 pm »

Quote from: balan h20 on 09/18/2011 11:25 am

But the flight rate is mainly because they have to wait on NASA and all the red tape is it not. They could launch this Nov but they have to have two people on board the ISS not one. Could they do the operation with one.

No. Free-flyer capture with the SSRMS is a two-person job. Only Don and Dan are trained to do it and there isn't enough time to train either of the Russians to do it.

mmeijeri · « **Reply #165 on:** 09/18/2011 08:33 pm »

Quote from: Jorge on 09/18/2011 08:23 pm

You're right. SpaceX could fly the next Dragon without going to ISS if they wanted, but then they wouldn't get credit for completing the Demo 2 objectives.

What do you mean by going to the ISS? Approaching it to 10 km or closer than that? Can they complete the COTS 2 goals without a new crew if they stay at 10 km? Can you make an educated guess whether SpaceX wants to combine COTS 2/3 for cost reasons or because they are playing schedule chicken?

krytek · « **Reply #166 on:** 09/18/2011 09:34 pm »

If they wanted to push the schedule back they could've just done COTS 2/3, since it requires a lot less development, trainings, testing etc. The follow up will then require more time to prepare for, try looking up a launch schedule before combined COTS 2+3 approval/consideration.
In fact, I believe one of the reasons NASA agreed to do a combined mission is to shorten the time to actual CRS missions.

spacetraveler · « **Reply #167 on:** 09/19/2011 12:08 am »

Quote from: Jim on 09/18/2011 02:42 pm

Quote from: krytek on 09/18/2011 02:34 pm

False. They have to have permission to approach the ISS, they must have trained astronaut participation in comm tests with ISS, same thing with NASA ground personnel.

Anyway, sometimes just waiting a few out is better.

Wrong. COTS 2 objectives do not require approach to ISS. Spacex could fly this on their own. They are the ones wanting to combined COTS 2 &3, so it is their delay, not NASA's.

Know a little more before trying to correct people

This contradicts everything I've previously heard. It was my understanding that COTS 2 always had ISS approach in the objectives. You're saying that's not the case?

Or are you saying that they could excise things originally in the cards for COTS 2 and do it without NASA approval?

If the latter, that wouldn't make any sense.

mmeijeri · « **Reply #168 on:** 09/19/2011 12:11 am »

Quote from: krytek on 09/18/2011 09:34 pm

If they wanted to push the schedule back they could've just done COTS 2/3, since it requires a lot less development, trainings, testing etc.

Not if they aren't even ready for COTS 2.

SpacexULA · « **Reply #169 on:** 09/19/2011 12:39 am »

Quote from: spacetraveler on 09/19/2011 12:08 am

This contradicts everything I've previously heard. It was my understanding that COTS 2 always had ISS approach in the objectives. You're saying that's not the case?

Or are you saying that they could excise things originally in the cards for COTS 2 and do it without NASA approval?

If the latter, that wouldn't make any sense.

COTS2 only has a simulated ISS aproach and capture, so they go to a point no where near ISS and pretend that they are doing the wave off and staying in the capture box for the arm.

Unfortunately COTS2 milestones to my knowlege also requires communications with ISS, because even though the craft is well outside of an area that could effect the ISS, it's still ISS hardware and crew that SpaceX would be interacting with.

Am I correct in this?

baldusi · « **Reply #170 on:** 09/19/2011 01:36 am »

May I point out, that when there was the Congressional Hearing, the NASA personnel said they considered that they wouldn't be later than February 2012 for COTS 3. They knew all along that they would not get everything ready for November. In particular, the level of development and testing of the Dragon software is probably one of the leading reasons for the delay.

Prober · « **Reply #171 on:** 09/19/2011 01:44 am »

Quote from: baldusi on 09/19/2011 01:36 am

May I point out, that when there was the Congressional Hearing, the NASA personnel said they considered that they wouldn't be later than February 2012 for COTS 3. They knew all along that they would not get everything ready for November. In particular, the level of development and testing of the Dragon software is probably one of the leading reasons for the delay.

Which hearing are you talking about?

dragon44 · « **Reply #172 on:** 09/19/2011 02:01 am »

Quote from: Jim on 09/18/2011 02:42 pm

Wrong. COTS 2 objectives do not require approach to ISS. Spacex could fly this on their own. They are the ones wanting to combined COTS 2 &3, so it is their delay, not NASA's.

Know a little more before trying to correct people

If by approach you mean traveling up the r-bar, that is correct. However, there are other objectives for C2 that require ISS.

From http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/553720main_Lueders%20C2C3%20Combine%20Assessment%205-2011.pdf
C2 objectives include "AGPS, Abort, Commanding from ISS, RGPS, Free Drift"

From http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/580957main_August%202011_CSD%2060%20Day%20Report_508.pdf
"C2 mission objectives include demonstrating ISS/Dragon communications and flight navigation, control, and contingency operations near ISS"

Obviously "Commanding from ISS" needs NASA support and astronauts trained on using the CUCU unit to send commands. RGPS is Relative GPS which requires ISS to send it's raw GPS signal to Dragon. I think there is enough here to show ISS is required to meet all of the C2 objectives.

That doesn't mean their aren't some C2 objectives that could be met with a non-NASA supported flight, but you would still end up with a C2/C3 mission for the third Dragon flight.

baldusi · « **Reply #173 on:** 09/19/2011 11:13 am »

Quote from: Prober on 09/19/2011 01:44 am

Quote from: baldusi on 09/19/2011 01:36 am
May I point out, that when there was the Congressional Hearing, the NASA personnel said they considered that they wouldn't be later than February 2012 for COTS 3. They knew all along that they would not get everything ready for November. In particular, the level of development and testing of the Dragon software is probably one of the leading reasons for the delay.

Which hearing are you talking about?

The May 27, 2011 "NASA's Commercial Cargo Providers: Are They Ready to Supply the Space Station in the Post-Shuttle Era?" one.

yg1968 · « **Reply #174 on:** 09/19/2011 07:16 pm »

Quote from: Jorge on 09/18/2011 08:26 pm

Quote from: yg1968 on 09/18/2011 02:55 pm
Why should SpaceX waste $50 million on COTS2. Orbital doesn't have a mission equivalent to COTS 2 planned; so why should SpaceX have one.

Each company negotiated its demo objectives with NASA separately. Orbital's design uses more legacy hardware and its test program relies more heavily on ground testing, analysis, and flight tests of analogs (they share quite a bit of hardware with HTV, which is already flying). SpaceX belongs to the "build a little, fly a little" school of testing and so that's what they wanted. They made their bed, now they can lie down in it.

Those are valid points. But if NASA agrees to combine COTS 2 and 3, it is because they would rather start delivering cargo to the ISS sooner rather than later. So they also benefit from the combined flight. They are not doing this as a favour to SpaceX.

The additional FY 2011 COTS money added a test flight for Orbital because it made no sense that Orbital only had one test flight and SpaceX had 3. Orbital only got $171 million in their original COTS agreement and this was likely insufficient to pay for more than one test flight.

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #175 on:** 09/19/2011 07:39 pm »

Quote from: yg1968 on 09/19/2011 07:16 pm

Quote from: Jorge on 09/18/2011 08:26 pm
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/18/2011 02:55 pm
Why should SpaceX waste $50 million on COTS2. Orbital doesn't have a mission equivalent to COTS 2 planned; so why should SpaceX have one.

Each company negotiated its demo objectives with NASA separately. Orbital's design uses more legacy hardware and its test program relies more heavily on ground testing, analysis, and flight tests of analogs (they share quite a bit of hardware with HTV, which is already flying). SpaceX belongs to the "build a little, fly a little" school of testing and so that's what they wanted. They made their bed, now they can lie down in it.

Those are valid points. But if NASA agrees to combine COTS 2 and 3, it is because they would rather start delivering cargo to the ISS sooner rather than later. So they also benefit from the combined flight. They are not doing this as a favour to SpaceX.

The additional FY 2011 COTS money added a test flight for Orbital because it made no sense that Orbital only had one test flight and SpaceX had 3. Orbital only got $171 million in their original COTS agreement and this was likely insufficient to pay for more than one test flight.

The additional Orbital flight was added as risk reduction. They added a test flight of the Taurus II without a Cygnus. It's the equivalent to the first F9 flight. They wanted to prove out the Taurus II before putting valuable cargo on top. This additional flight had nothing to do with SpaceX.

SpaceXSLS · « **Reply #176 on:** 09/19/2011 08:28 pm »

Hello long time lurker slinking out the darkness here

.

I happened upon this article from aviationweek which seems to indicate that there will be no interruption in the normal staffing of the ISS

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/09/19/11.xml&headline=Soyuz%20Crew%20Launches%20To%20ISS%20To%20Resume

the relevant info is...
"Hours before three International Space Station (ISS) crewmembers descended safely to Earth aboard their Soyuz 26 capsule early Sept. 16, the NASA-led Space Station Control board approved plans to resume launches of the Russian spacecraft on Nov. 14, a schedule that would prevent a temporary interruption in the staffing of the 15-nation orbiting science laboratory."

Assuming I understood the article correctly, doesn't this mean the ISS will have the trained personnel on hand for a Nov/Dec F9 launch?

Peter NASA · « **Reply #177 on:** 09/19/2011 08:34 pm »

Welcome to this forum, but a good pointer would be then to read this site's news. It has more explanatory articles.

See this.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/soyuz-tma-21-earth-nasa-confirms-new-iss-flight-manifest/

balan h20 · « **Reply #178 on:** 09/19/2011 11:48 pm »

They cant train a russian to help the american then they have another choice. They upload a program into R2 and into DEXTRE and let the robots handle the docking of the Dragon. Then they can take a nap and let the robots do all the work every time it comes in. It will be more like the Jetsons with Rosie the maid answering the door.

Jorge · « **Reply #179 on:** 09/19/2011 11:53 pm »

Quote from: balan h20 on 09/19/2011 11:48 pm

They cant train a russian to help the american then they have another choice. They upload a program into R2 and into DEXTRE and let the robots handle the docking of the Dragon. Then they can take a nap and let the robots do all the work every time it comes in. It will be more like the Jetsons with Rosie the maid answering the door.

Good joke, Balan!