Author Topic: SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2) (Read 787854 times)

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #40 on:** 09/01/2011 07:31 pm »

And they sent out the full newsletter and a nice photo.....

corrodedNut · « **Reply #41 on:** 09/01/2011 08:35 pm »

Another WDR yesterday?

http://twitter.com/#/SpaceXer/status/109359658841546752/photo/1

jabe · « **Reply #42 on:** 09/01/2011 08:41 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 09/01/2011 08:35 pm

Another WDR yesterday?

http://twitter.com/#/SpaceXer/status/109359658841546752/photo/1

i like how they hid the fact the falcon was "headless" in that pic. I wonder if the next falcon and dragon will be ready in quick succession. spacex has hinted lots of launches. Wonder how optimistic it is. We will soon know I guess
jb

ugordan · « **Reply #43 on:** 09/01/2011 08:45 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 09/01/2011 08:35 pm

Another WDR yesterday?

Yep. Guess they won't tell us why, though.

corrodedNut · « **Reply #44 on:** 09/01/2011 08:53 pm »

Practice makes perfect?

tigerade · « **Reply #45 on:** 09/01/2011 08:53 pm »

Quote from: jabe on 09/01/2011 08:41 pm

Quote from: corrodedNut on 09/01/2011 08:35 pm
Another WDR yesterday?

http://twitter.com/#/SpaceXer/status/109359658841546752/photo/1
i like how they hid the fact the falcon was "headless" in that pic. I wonder if the next falcon and dragon will be ready in quick succession. spacex has hinted lots of launches. Wonder how optimistic it is. We will soon know I guess
jb

Well, of course it is. The dragon is still in hawthorne isn't it? It still has more testing.

MP99 · « **Reply #46 on:** 09/01/2011 09:22 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 08/31/2011 05:59 pm

Looks like "Dragon to F9 Mate" is in about 3 weeks

Sounds like an interesting chess move! (On an differently shaped board).

cheers, Martin

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #47 on:** 09/02/2011 02:31 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 09/01/2011 08:53 pm

Practice makes perfect?

How much more can then do with the current F9 while they are waiting for the Dragon to show up ? I assume once you pass a WDR, there isn't much left to do besides planning your day on the beach/golf course/Disney World.

go4mars · « **Reply #48 on:** 09/02/2011 02:34 pm »

Quote from: Lurker Steve on 09/02/2011 02:31 pm

Quote from: corrodedNut on 09/01/2011 08:53 pm
Practice makes perfect?

How much more can then do with the current F9 while they are waiting for the Dragon to show up ? I assume once you pass a WDR, there isn't much left to do besides planning your day on the beach/golf course/Disney World.

Come up with ideas for making ~6 hours become < 1hour?

corrodedNut · « **Reply #49 on:** 09/06/2011 06:36 pm »

Have a look at the red tape:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0901/DA-11-1499A1.pdf

So, Orbcomm has to explain to the FCC the likelyhood of SpaceX's upper stage causing "human casualties"? Is this an example of "competing regulators"? I suppose this kind of thing happens all the time, but it seems a little bizzare to me.

Jim · « **Reply #50 on:** 09/06/2011 06:46 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 09/06/2011 06:36 pm

Have a look at the red tape:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0901/DA-11-1499A1.pdf

So, Orbcomm has to explain to the FCC the likelyhood of SpaceX's upper stage causing "human casualties"? Is this an example of "competing regulators"? I suppose this kind of thing happens all the time, but it seems a little bizzare to me.

Not really. FCC handles long term debris with respect to comsats.

Lars_J · « **Reply #51 on:** 09/06/2011 07:26 pm »

This PDF file from ESA, focusing on the upcoming ESA crew on the next space station expedition, has some more detailed images from JSC(?) simulations of Dragon docking:

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/eac/ESAs4thLongDurationMission.pdf

(about 3/5 ths into the document)

I have attached some closeups - the grapple fixture seems to be part of a beefed up door structure. Although this is of course a low fidelity simulation that we should not read too many details from.

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #52 on:** 09/06/2011 08:06 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2011 06:46 pm

Quote from: corrodedNut on 09/06/2011 06:36 pm
Have a look at the red tape:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0901/DA-11-1499A1.pdf

So, Orbcomm has to explain to the FCC the likelyhood of SpaceX's upper stage causing "human casualties"? Is this an example of "competing regulators"? I suppose this kind of thing happens all the time, but it seems a little bizzare to me.

Not really. FCC handles long term debris with respect to comsats.

Their concerns really should have been brought up by the FAA, since it deals with collision avoidance, and debris from their satelites and the second stage coming back to earth. I would have thought that the FCC mainly concerned itself with the SAT staying on their own licensed frequency, and other "communication" related items.

It would be nice if there were a single agency to interface with, but then what would we do with all the bureaucrats ?

Back to the point however. It appears that whoever completed this application to the FCC, performed a bit too much arm-waving in their application, and it was rejected. Now they need to fill in some real numbers, like how much propellant they really will have left once they reach orbit for collision avoidance and de-orbit manuvers.

Now, it's September 8th. How long until Orbcomm re-submits their application to the FCC ? What if there are changes to the Orbcomm spacecraft required to make them comply with the FCC requirements ? I assume it's too late in the game to remove these from the flight, so this may cause even more slippage to the COTS 2 schedule.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #53 on:** 09/06/2011 08:15 pm »

Quote from: Lurker Steve on 09/06/2011 08:06 pm

I assume it's too late in the game to remove these from the flight, so this may cause even more slippage to the COTS 2 schedule.

Why, the Dragon has not arrived at the launch site.

Comga · « **Reply #54 on:** 09/06/2011 08:22 pm »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 09/06/2011 08:15 pm

Quote from: Lurker Steve on 09/06/2011 08:06 pm
I assume it's too late in the game to remove these from the flight, so this may cause even more slippage to the COTS 2 schedule.

Why, the Dragon has not arrived at the launch site.

Also, with RatSat on Falcon 1 flight 4, SpaceX demonstrated that they could quickly make up mass models to take the place of the Orbcomms if those satelites were not cleared for the COTS-2/3 flight. They could bolt them on without the release mechanisms.

Jim · « **Reply #55 on:** 09/06/2011 09:24 pm »

Quote from: Lurker Steve on 09/06/2011 08:06 pm

Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2011 06:46 pm
Quote from: corrodedNut on 09/06/2011 06:36 pm
Have a look at the red tape:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0901/DA-11-1499A1.pdf

So, Orbcomm has to explain to the FCC the likelyhood of SpaceX's upper stage causing "human casualties"? Is this an example of "competing regulators"? I suppose this kind of thing happens all the time, but it seems a little bizzare to me.

Not really. FCC handles long term debris with respect to comsats.

Their concerns really should have been brought up by the FAA, since it deals with collision avoidance, and debris from their satelites and the second stage coming back to earth. I would have thought that the FCC mainly concerned itself with the SAT staying on their own licensed frequency, and other "communication" related items.

It would be nice if there were a single agency to interface with, but then what would we do with all the bureaucrats ?

Back to the point however. It appears that whoever completed this application to the FCC, performed a bit too much arm-waving in their application, and it was rejected. Now they need to fill in some real numbers, like how much propellant they really will have left once they reach orbit for collision avoidance and de-orbit manuvers.

Now, it's September 8th. How long until Orbcomm re-submits their application to the FCC ? What if there are changes to the Orbcomm spacecraft required to make them comply with the FCC requirements ? I assume it's too late in the game to remove these from the flight, so this may cause even more slippage to the COTS 2 schedule.

No, The FCC covers US comsats because they can be launched by other providers from countries with no or little laws concerning orbital debris.

Comga · « **Reply #56 on:** 09/06/2011 11:35 pm »

"antonioe" posted

"We don't know what happened with SpaceX's JT4, I believe they had to stop it and will be back in December."

That would set back COTS-2/3 quite a bit, assuming they aren't already postponed by by NASA's SSRMS software issues.

Any confirmation out there or further information?

zaitcev · « **Reply #57 on:** 09/07/2011 01:09 am »

Quote from: Lars_J on 09/06/2011 07:26 pm

I have attached some closeups - the grapple fixture seems to be part of a beefed up door structure. Although this is of course a low fidelity simulation that we should not read too many details from.

It always was like that, nothing new. The "structure" is one with the "door" that covers the compartment between tank clusters on the other side from the main chute. When "open", or actually unfolded, it overalys the real door, which crew uses, but is not related to it in any way.

Lars_J · « **Reply #58 on:** 09/07/2011 02:11 am »

Quote from: zaitcev on 09/07/2011 01:09 am

Quote from: Lars_J on 09/06/2011 07:26 pm
I have attached some closeups - the grapple fixture seems to be part of a beefed up door structure. Although this is of course a low fidelity simulation that we should not read too many details from.
It always was like that, nothing new. The "structure" is one with the "door" that covers the compartment between tank clusters on the other side from the main chute. When "open", or actually unfolded, it overalys the real door, which crew uses, but is not related to it in any way.

I think the my main question was if the grapple fixture was attached to the door (folding out) or fixed behind the door. I know early materials have placed it on a door, but SpaceX does sometimes change their design.

Antares · « **Reply #59 on:** 09/07/2011 02:57 am »

FAA vs FCC does sound like competing regulators since it is asking for the same data. Paging Mr. Rohrabacher. FCC chair has some 'splainin'... nevermind. Genachowski will have enough things to answer about his O'Brien imitations before this issue makes it into the next hearing.