Author Topic: SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2) (Read 787852 times)

Lars_J · « **Reply #200 on:** 09/26/2011 03:41 pm »

Well it makes sense, without too many changes from SpaceX. If C2+C3 is a success, C3 simply becomes CRS1. Otherwise it flies as C3.

Hardly any hardware change at all, unless C2+C3 shows any problems. They have hardware (at least an F9) ready to fly in the Feb/March time frame anyways.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #201 on:** 09/27/2011 02:28 am »

We're getting word that it is now unlikely C2 and C3 will be combined. Russian side want more data. I'm (by coincidence) writing a commercial article and will include what we have.

No decision yet, so don't go throwing away your "Woo, combined all the way!" T-Shirts just yet

Remember, there was a big fuss on the Russian side in their media a few months ago about not combining and we were the opposite, saying it was still likely, per the NASA guys.

Always good to have a hand full of salt when it's not a cut-and-dry NASA decision.

Prober · « **Reply #202 on:** 09/27/2011 02:33 am »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/27/2011 02:28 am

We're getting word that it is now unlikely C2 and C3 will be combined. Russian side want more data. I'm (by coincidence) writing a commercial article and will include what we have.

No decision yet, so don't go throwing away your "Woo, combined all the way!" T-Shirts just yet Remember, there was a big fuss on the Russian side in their media a few months ago about not combining and we were the opposite, saying it was still likely, per the NASA guys.

Always good to have a hand full of salt when it's not a cut-and-dry NASA decision.

Interesting development, thx for the quick update.

Could this be costly for SpaceX?

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #203 on:** 09/27/2011 04:24 am »

Right, I've been careful with the C2/C3, provided some L2 status on progress and there's a lot about ASAP's meeting about commercial too (standalone thread on the commercial sections):

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/asap-nasa-teams-avoid-going-native-commercial-spacex-latest/

mr. mark · « **Reply #204 on:** 09/27/2011 04:36 am »

How does that Rolling Stone's song, Under My Thumb, go.....

"However, NASA source information on Monday has pointed to different problem, this time with the “Stakeholders” – notably the Russians, who appear to be unsatisfied with the “performance data” supplied to them from the COTS 1 flight".

Another reason why we need to move beyond Russian involvement. In the end this comes down to money, delaying tactics, ect. ........

Tonight, I'm very disappointed and it seems Elon Musk and the rest of Spacex's employees will be as well. I'm also wondering how this affects Orbital's Cygnus plans as well. Cygnus was going to do a straight berthing with no preliminary test flight. The only pre flight test upcoming is for the Taurus 2 launch vehicle.

Space Junkie · « **Reply #205 on:** 09/27/2011 05:34 am »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/27/2011 02:28 am

We're getting word that it is now unlikely C2 and C3 will be combined. Russian side want more data.

So should this be interpreted as the Russians actually having real concerns? Or are they likely playing bureaucratic or political games, holding things up because they can?

docmordrid · « **Reply #206 on:** 09/27/2011 05:38 am »

Be interesting to see what the Russians say about Cygnus berthing. If they don't complain that makes their issues with Dragon seem all the more like they perceive it as a threat to their current crew monopoly. Maybe the "partner" votes should be reallocated according who has the most sunken cost?

Lars_J · « **Reply #207 on:** 09/27/2011 06:26 am »

Quote from: Space Junkie on 09/27/2011 05:34 am

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/27/2011 02:28 am
We're getting word that it is now unlikely C2 and C3 will be combined. Russian side want more data.

So should this be interpreted as the Russians actually having real concerns? Or are they likely playing bureaucratic or political games, holding things up because they can?

What I don't understand is why the C3 part would be so concerning for them. The C2 flight will after all get pretty close to the station - and no C3 objectives would be attempted unless all C2 objectives were met.

woods170 · « **Reply #208 on:** 09/27/2011 08:42 am »

Quote from: Prober on 09/27/2011 02:33 am

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/27/2011 02:28 am
We're getting word that it is now unlikely C2 and C3 will be combined. Russian side want more data. I'm (by coincidence) writing a commercial article and will include what we have.

No decision yet, so don't go throwing away your "Woo, combined all the way!" T-Shirts just yet Remember, there was a big fuss on the Russian side in their media a few months ago about not combining and we were the opposite, saying it was still likely, per the NASA guys.

Always good to have a hand full of salt when it's not a cut-and-dry NASA decision.

Interesting development, thx for the quick update.

Could this be costly for SpaceX?

Yes. Flying an additional Falcon-9 on a demo mission. Flying an additional Dragon on a demo mission. Saving money was one of the drivers behind the idea of combining C2 and C3 into a single mission.

woods170 · « **Reply #209 on:** 09/27/2011 12:59 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/27/2011 02:28 am

We're getting word that it is now unlikely C2 and C3 will be combined. Russian side want more data. I'm (by coincidence) writing a commercial article and will include what we have.

No decision yet, so don't go throwing away your "Woo, combined all the way!" T-Shirts just yet Remember, there was a big fuss on the Russian side in their media a few months ago about not combining and we were the opposite, saying it was still likely, per the NASA guys.

Always good to have a hand full of salt when it's not a cut-and-dry NASA decision.

I wonder when US Congress will play the 'Russia' card over this?

yg1968 · « **Reply #210 on:** 09/27/2011 01:54 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 09/27/2011 05:38 am

Be interesting to see what the Russians say about Cygnus berthing. If they don't complain that makes their issues with Dragon seem all the more like they perceive it as a threat to their current crew monopoly. Maybe the "partner" votes should be reallocated according who has the most sunken cost?

I doubt it. For one thing Cygnus is very similar to ATV. For another, the Cygnus flight has been planned for years, it would be a bit late in the game for the Russians to raise this issue at this point.

mr. mark · « **Reply #211 on:** 09/27/2011 01:56 pm »

NASA could retaliate by requesting a non payload test launch as well.... seeing as their third stage malfunctioned........

But we are talking baby games here. The Russians can't stall the future forever... but, they'll try. Could they be that scared of commercial? Maybe they are worried about getting technically outflanked by a rapid development program that includes first stage recovery as well as other innovations. They would have to keep up to be technically viable. Maybe we are seeing a new space race beginning but this time based on technical innovation. Well this is for another board for discussion......

Kaputnik · « **Reply #212 on:** 09/27/2011 02:13 pm »

Quote from: mr. mark on 09/27/2011 01:56 pm

NASA could retaliate by requesting a non payload test launch as well.... seeing as their third stage malfunctioned........

But we are talking baby games here. The Russians can't stall the future forever... but, they'll try. Could they be that scared of commercial? Maybe they are worried about getting technically outflanked by a rapid development program that includes first stage recovery as well as other innovations. They would have to keep up to be technically viable. Maybe we are seeing a new space race beginning but this time based on technical innovation. Well this is for another board for discussion......

The only thing they need to do to 'keep up' is to meet the upmass and crew flight requirements. They will presumably choose to do this in whatever manner costs them the least. So, partial LV recovery is not an end in itself but merely one way of lowering costs- that so far few have considered to be worth the hassle.
The Russians have had ample opportunity to modernise the Soyuz launcher in various radical ways- e.g. cross-feed, new engines, booster recovery, but they have never developed these. You have to wonder why, and the only logical answer is that the benefits are outweighed by the costs.

Space Pete · « **Reply #213 on:** 09/27/2011 02:56 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/27/2011 02:28 am

We're getting word that it is now unlikely C2 and C3 will be combined. Russian side want more data.

I don't really know what to make of this.

One the one hand, NASA insist on having a say in Soyuz & Progress flights, so it's only fair that Russia have a say in US vehicle flights.

However, Russia being concerned about the safety of US vehicles, in light of their recent string of failures in the "era of reliability" is ironic at best.

It could also be Russia "flexing their muscles" now that they are the primary means of ISS access.

I just don't know...

baldusi · « **Reply #214 on:** 09/27/2011 03:06 pm »

Quote from: Kaputnik on 09/27/2011 02:13 pm

Quote from: mr. mark on 09/27/2011 01:56 pm
NASA could retaliate by requesting a non payload test launch as well.... seeing as their third stage malfunctioned........

But we are talking baby games here. The Russians can't stall the future forever... but, they'll try. Could they be that scared of commercial? Maybe they are worried about getting technically outflanked by a rapid development program that includes first stage recovery as well as other innovations. They would have to keep up to be technically viable. Maybe we are seeing a new space race beginning but this time based on technical innovation. Well this is for another board for discussion......

The only thing they need to do to 'keep up' is to meet the upmass and crew flight requirements. They will presumably choose to do this in whatever manner costs them the least. So, partial LV recovery is not an end in itself but merely one way of lowering costs- that so far few have considered to be worth the hassle.
The Russians have had ample opportunity to modernise the Soyuz launcher in various radical ways- e.g. cross-feed, new engines, booster recovery, but they have never developed these. You have to wonder why, and the only logical answer is that the benefits are outweighed by the costs.

Or simply that they lacked the budget to study this AND do all the other national priorities. I believe that Angara+Rus-M+PTK+Vostochny+Dvina+GLONASS-K+Science has been too much for the available budget. Adding the research that should go for the Baikal and other proposals it would be too much. I guess that once they are past having a fully Russian space industry, with modern launchers, and a stable GNSS, they will start to add improvements like cross feeding and reusable boosters, etc.

starsilk · « **Reply #215 on:** 09/27/2011 04:38 pm »

so if there ISN'T going to be a combined C2+C3 flight, does this mean C2 will be back to launching in November again? it was being pushed to the right because there weren't enough trained astronauts on the ISS for berthing, but if it's not going to berth anyway... why not get it over with?

Lars_J · « **Reply #216 on:** 09/27/2011 04:40 pm »

C2 will still require ISS astronaut involvement. I believe some of the C2 tests involve astronaut control/override of Dragon approach.

starsilk · « **Reply #217 on:** 09/27/2011 04:49 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 09/27/2011 04:40 pm

C2 will still require ISS astronaut involvement. I believe some of the C2 tests involve astronaut control/override of Dragon approach.

sure, but presumably much less time/effort than is required for berthing? so it may be possible to complete with the current crew..

yg1968 · « **Reply #218 on:** 09/27/2011 05:22 pm »

Quote from: starsilk on 09/27/2011 04:38 pm

so if there ISN'T going to be a combined C2+C3 flight, does this mean C2 will be back to launching in November again? it was being pushed to the right because there weren't enough trained astronauts on the ISS for berthing, but if it's not going to berth anyway... why not get it over with?

Concerning the timing of the COTS 2 demo flight, Chris' article says this:

Quote

The scenario outlined by the source information points to a potential negative decision resulting in the COTS 2 mission in January, 2012 – which was the latest placeholder for the combined C2/C3 mission – prior to the pre-planned C3 mission taking place later in 2012.

Antares · « **Reply #219 on:** 09/27/2011 06:07 pm »

The US is unlikely to require any more Soyuz flights before crew than the Russians would already. The U.S. is dependent on both Soyuz and Progress flights. Russia is not dependent on CRS flights. Q.E.D.

Still, I bet this is not entirely technical.