SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[spacetraveler]

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.

However, Progress cannot service the station's resupply needs alone, so for the station to continue to function and the Russians to be a part of it, aren't they dependent to some extent on alternative to Shuttle taking over some of the resupply (like CRS)?

[Prober]

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.

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.

Read back the posts after Columbia and see how it affected the thinking of people.   I wouldn't let this get overblown, you comment above IMHO is the answer.

[antonioe]

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.

Could their concerns be technical rather than monopolistic?  After all, the two vehicles are not identical...

[baldusi]

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.

Could their concerns be technical rather than monopolistic?  After all, the two vehicles are not identical...

SpaceX has constantly under performed on the paperwork side of this industry. I'm assuming that they didn't gave enough tests and analysis to the Russians. I know how European bureaucrats are, and I'm sure NASA is quite a bit less than whet ESA and Roscosmos require.

[go4mars]

SpaceX has constantly under performed on the paperwork side of this industry. I'm assuming that they didn't gave enough tests and analysis to the Russians. I know how European bureaucrats are, and I'm sure NASA is quite a bit less than whet ESA and Roscosmos require.

  ESA I can see, but I thought Russia was more of a "shoot from the hip", and "trust the designers" kind of country. 

[baldusi]

SpaceX has constantly under performed on the paperwork side of this industry. I'm assuming that they didn't gave enough tests and analysis to the Russians. I know how European bureaucrats are, and I'm sure NASA is quite a bit less than whet ESA and Roscosmos require.

  ESA I can see, but I thought Russia was more of a "shoot from the hip", and "trust the designers" kind of country. 

In Europe, the level of ignorance of mathematics that's accepted in the US (high school, undergrad and civil servant level) is impossible to see. It's no wonder that the Russian have made many a disproportional amount of the fundamental of calculus and optimization. That should tell you something about their education. But that requires lots and lots of paper and analysis. And more importantly formula derivation, no output from ANSYS.
but both you and me are talking without inner knowledge. So we can only speculate if this is the real way.

[Lars_J]

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.

Could their concerns be technical rather than monopolistic?  After all, the two vehicles are not identical...

SpaceX has constantly under performed on the paperwork side of this industry. I'm assuming that they didn't gave enough tests and analysis to the Russians. I know how European bureaucrats are, and I'm sure NASA is quite a bit less than whet ESA and Roscosmos require.

Source?

[baldusi]

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.

Could their concerns be technical rather than monopolistic?  After all, the two vehicles are not identical...

SpaceX has constantly under performed on the paperwork side of this industry. I'm assuming that they didn't gave enough tests and analysis to the Russians. I know how European bureaucrats are, and I'm sure NASA is quite a bit less than whet ESA and Roscosmos require.

Source?

All the CCdev and FAA permits and Range Safety has constantly said that SpaceX were behind with the paperwork. That they didn't did enough analysis to bring calm to the (NASA, FAA, USAF) officials on the first try. It might be an impression. But that's what I've got from what I've read.
In any case it's more of a counter point to those who say "the Russians are boycotting their future competition".

[hop]

Could their concerns be technical rather than monopolistic?  After all, the two vehicles are not identical...

Crazy talk 

ESA I can see, but I thought Russia was more of a "shoot from the hip", and "trust the designers" kind of country. 

The Russians did have a very bad experience with a half-baked cargo vehicle test. Many of the people who are now in senior positions had first hand experience of that.

Of course, bureaucratic games would also not be entirely out of character either. What I don't buy is the argument they are doing it so they can sell more Soyuz/Progress... it just doesn't add up: delaying a COTS flight by a few months isn't going to change the big picture, and there's no way they could just go on saying no forever without a good reason. In any case, the people in their program who actually want to do stuff in space know that it's in their interest to have redundant access and a fully supplied US segment.

[baldusi]

ESA I can see, but I thought Russia was more of a "shoot from the hip", and "trust the designers" kind of country. 

The Russians did have a very bad experience with a half-baked cargo vehicle test. Many of the people who are now in senior positions had first hand experience of that.

Of course, bureaucratic games would also not be entirely out of character either. What I don't buy is the argument they are doing it so they can sell more Soyuz/Progress... it just doesn't add up: delaying a COTS flight by a few months isn't going to change the big picture, and there's no way they could just go on saying no forever without a good reason. In any case, the people in their program who actually want to do stuff in space know that it's in their interest to have redundant access and a fully supplied US segment.

I would also speculate that the US having a working Commercial Crew/Cargo system, would actually make the Russian government to actually give some money for an equivalent development. I've got a feeling that currently they are letting NASA pay a significant percentage of their costs.

[Prober]

ESA I can see, but I thought Russia was more of a "shoot from the hip", and "trust the designers" kind of country. 

The Russians did have a very bad experience with a half-baked cargo vehicle test. Many of the people who are now in senior positions had first hand experience of that.

Of course, bureaucratic games would also not be entirely out of character either. What I don't buy is the argument they are doing it so they can sell more Soyuz/Progress... it just doesn't add up: delaying a COTS flight by a few months isn't going to change the big picture, and there's no way they could just go on saying no forever without a good reason. In any case, the people in their program who actually want to do stuff in space know that it's in their interest to have redundant access and a fully supplied US segment.

I would also speculate that the US having a working Commercial Crew/Cargo system, would actually make the Russian government to actually give some money for an equivalent development. I've got a feeling that currently they are letting NASA pay a significant percentage of their costs.

ReRead Griffins text before congress.  It's eyeopening, and few are talking about it.

[baldusi]

ReRead Griffens text before congress.  It's eyeopening, and few are talking about it.

I read and found it disgusting, manipulative, and generally very underhanded with very clear ulterior motives. Everybody knows that the problem is no plan, nor willingness to fund one. The rest is very cynic and manipulative.

[Chris Bergin]

SpaceX PAO with a statement (this is all that was sent):

"SpaceX Launch Update:

NASA is working with SpaceX on our technical and safety data for this mission while coordinating with its international partners to sort out a launch schedule once a definitive decision is reached on the next Soyuz flight to the International Space Station.

As a result, we've submitted December 19th to NASA and the Air Force as the first in a range of dates that we would be ready to launch.

We recognize that a target launch date cannot be set until NASA gives us the green light and the partnership of the International Space Station make a decision on when to continue Soyuz flights.

Our flight is one of many that have to be carefully coordinated,  so the ultimate schedule of launches to the ISS is still under consideration."

[Antares]

I find it, to use Griffin's word, unseemly that a competitor posts in SpaceX threads. Am I alone?

[hop]

I find it, to use Griffin's word, unseemly that a competitor posts in SpaceX threads. Am I alone?

I don't see anything unseemly about it. People should be judged by what they post not who the work for. It could be unseemly if they were spreading FUD but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[Andy USA]

I find it, to use Griffin's word, unseemly that a competitor posts in SpaceX threads. Am I alone?

Not sure who you're talking about, but seen as people working and lobbying for commercial space have set up camp in the SLS threads, I don't see why not

[Robotbeat]

I find it, to use Griffin's word, unseemly that a competitor posts in SpaceX threads. Am I alone?

Not sure who you're talking about, but seen as people working and lobbying for commercial space have set up camp in the SLS threads, I don't see why not

Such as?

[mr. mark]

I'd like to discuss the new trunk design along with the solar panel covers and how that will alert or affect this particular flight. This is the first flight with this design. Is it a radical departure or have other trunks from other rockets had this design.

[Jim]

No other rockets have "trunks".  It is a silly term only used by Spacex.

Look at Voskod for fairings over spacecraft components.
Not a big deal, just a different of way of managing risk. 

[mr. mark]

What I'm looking for is more aerodynamic information. How will this design affect the flight of the launch vehicle if any.