SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[Chris Bergin]

Heh! Wouldn't go that far But thanks

[Comga]

Ok, here's where we stand on things, including long-range. Note this is all up in the air with the Soyuz situation. Even had a wild note 30 mins ago about CRS-3 in April (which can't be right). Going with documentation:

ISS partners prepare to welcome SpaceX and Orbital in a busy 2012:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/10/iss-partners-welcome-spacex-orbital-busy-2012/

Excellent!  Great article.  A solid defense against my creeping cynicism.

[iamlucky13]

Ok, here's where we stand on things, including long-range. Note this is all up in the air with the Soyuz situation. Even had a wild note 30 mins ago about CRS-3 in April (which can't be right). Going with documentation:

ISS partners prepare to welcome SpaceX and Orbital in a busy 2012:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/10/iss-partners-welcome-spacex-orbital-busy-2012/

Maybe they meant a contingency COTS-3 in April rather than CRS-3?

I'm looking forward to reading the article as soon as I have a few minutes for it.

[Phillip Clark]

Updating. We're hearing the Russian side are now in a position of signing off on C2/C3 (D2/D3) combined.

This is backed up a new RSC Energia Manifest going around NASA (L2), which has the full 2012 schedule, with four SpaceX Dragon flights, opening with CRS-1 on April 12 (STS-1 anniversary!)

Going "around the room" but no info to the contray of the above. Will likely write it up shortly.

More significantly, April 12th is the anniversary of Gagarin's flight on Vostok!!   The STS-1 launch was an unintended 20th anniversary celebration. :-)

[ugordan]

Given how far April 12, 2012 is in the future, there really is no reason to get even remotely excited about that particular date.

[docmordrid]

Interesting article on UT re: "lost in translation"

http://www.universetoday.com/89666/lost-in-translation-cyrillic-semantics-and-spacex/

[Wyvern]

Wow.

2012 seems like the breakout year for SpaceX.  It's also nice to see Orbital launching their own craft. 

Lets hope this will actually go somewhere.

[mr. mark]

A further update on COTS 2/3 decision.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/10/10/02.xml&headline=SpaceX%20ISS%20Berthing%20Decision%20Coming%20Soon&channel=space

[iamlucky13]

“This is basically an issue of semantics, of interpretation,” Navias said. “The Russian media wrote this article and when it was translated – it appeared as if that Russia was saying something – which they simply weren’t.”

I would venture that it's a little less nuanced than that. All you need to know is the original source:

Such was the case recently when the media (this website included) reported on a Ria Novosti article that claimed that members within the Russian Space Agency had stated opposition to Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) docking their next Dragon spacecraft with the International Space Station.

RIA Novosti is the parent of the English language "news" site Russia Today (really a mix of a tabloid site and a government PR publishing center). Russia Today is the site that a year or two ago reported Russia had revived the Buran program to rescue NASA from the pending STS retirement.

Bewilderingly, despite the Russian government's close relationship to Russia Today, it's quite common for them to post articles that don't accurately reflect the government's official stance.

[Comga]

More discussion of ISS software upgrades, their delayed schedules, and the potential impacts on COTS Demo-2/3 in Pete Harding's excellent article.

[corrodedNut]

A further update on COTS 2/3 decision.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/10/10/02.xml&headline=SpaceX%20ISS%20Berthing%20Decision%20Coming%20Soon&channel=space

From the article, bolded for emphasis:

"NASA has questions about potential danger to the ISS from the satellites and their signals, and wants more data on the piggyback plan before it clears the first SpaceX mission..."

It's hard out there for a capitalist

"Still to be determined is whether the grapple-and-berth approach to delivering crew to the station is acceptable, since a berthed vehicle may not be able to be separated quickly in an emergency. Brian Bjelde, SpaceX’s director of product and mission management, says the company is still studying ISS requirements and seeking a solution."

What the heck? I thought this was never gonna happen?

[grr]

...
Bewilderingly, despite the Russian government's close relationship to Russia Today, it's quite common for them to post articles that don't accurately reflect the government's official stance.

No different than national inquirer or fox news here, pravda in Russia.

[Lurker Steve]

A further update on COTS 2/3 decision.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/10/10/02.xml&headline=SpaceX%20ISS%20Berthing%20Decision%20Coming%20Soon&channel=space

From the article, bolded for emphasis:

"NASA has questions about potential danger to the ISS from the satellites and their signals, and wants more data on the piggyback plan before it clears the first SpaceX mission..."

It's hard out there for a capitalist

"Still to be determined is whether the grapple-and-berth approach to delivering crew to the station is acceptable, since a berthed vehicle may not be able to be separated quickly in an emergency. Brian Bjelde, SpaceX’s director of product and mission management, says the company is still studying ISS requirements and seeking a solution."

What the heck? I thought this was never gonna happen?

I suppose they keep common functionality by using "Berthing" for the crewed version, but they would be the only crewed vehicle that is considering that option. Everyone else is performing a true docking manuver, correct ? I guess this goes with their plan of treating passengers like any other cargo. No need for a window or even manual controls if the passengers have no control over the process.

Of course, this doesn't match NASA's requirements at all.

[Robotbeat]

... I guess this goes with their plan of treating passengers like any other cargo. No need for a window or even manual controls if the passengers have no control over the process. ...

What a load of baloney, the very first flight of Dragon included windows. Not necessarily in exactly the spot the astronaut corp might want them (they'll need to be moved for the later versions), but they're there and have been since the beginning, exactly because they knew they wanted Dragon to be manned.

[peter-b]

... I guess this goes with their plan of treating passengers like any other cargo. No need for a window or even manual controls if the passengers have no control over the process. ...

What a load of baloney, the very first flight of Dragon included windows. Not necessarily in exactly the spot the astronaut corp might want them (they'll need to be moved for the later versions), but they're there and have been since the beginning, exactly because they knew they wanted Dragon to be manned.

I still don't understand the astronaut corps' fixation with windows for piloting, when periscopes are entirely adequate even if you assume your electronics have failed.

[balan h20]

It goes back to the original core of astranauts and thier training as test pilots. All pilots like to see the ground when they land and have a window to look out of to see it through.No pilot ever landed a submarine.

[beancounter]

... I guess this goes with their plan of treating passengers like any other cargo. No need for a window or even manual controls if the passengers have no control over the process. ...

What a load of baloney, the very first flight of Dragon included windows. Not necessarily in exactly the spot the astronaut corp might want them (they'll need to be moved for the later versions), but they're there and have been since the beginning, exactly because they knew they wanted Dragon to be manned.

Beats me how you use a window when you're re-entering.  If someone can explain this then I'm happy for windows but otherwise ...  Seems to me it's all instrumentation.  If that fails then it's a ballistic reentry with the capsule orienting itself automatically due to design rather than any controlling mechanism.  Pilots not required. 

Wrt berthing, a window might be nice but not essential.  Again, I'd think that the tolerances for berthing require instrumentation and a scope could provide this far more effectively than a window.  You couldn't do it without.  Anyway, Dragon cargo uses the arm, crew could too.  Sorry if I've mixed up berthing as opposed to docking - always do that.

[Prober]

... I guess this goes with their plan of treating passengers like any other cargo. No need for a window or even manual controls if the passengers have no control over the process. ...

What a load of baloney, the very first flight of Dragon included windows. Not necessarily in exactly the spot the astronaut corp might want them (they'll need to be moved for the later versions), but they're there and have been since the beginning, exactly because they knew they wanted Dragon to be manned.

I still don't understand the astronaut corps' fixation with windows for piloting, when periscopes are entirely adequate even if you assume your electronics have failed.

the supply of periscopes in the early years was used up in the block houses.

[Antares]

Don't forget the one on Spirit of St. Louis....  I'll be over here muttering comparisons between CB and Lindbergh.

[Comga]

Don't forget the one on Spirit of St. Louis....  I'll be over here muttering comparisons between CB and Lindbergh.

Precisely my thought!
(About The Spirit of St. Louis, I mean.  I have no idea who CB refers to.)