SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[mr. mark]

As reported here, the mission has received preliminary approval from NASA but is undergoing further simulation due to the satellites that the Falcon 9 will also carry and their potential of harm to the ISS. We have not received final approval. Chris reported that the Russians are leaning towards being on board. I would guess that once the final findings and approval are ok'd that we will soon see a "real" launch date/window. 

[demorcef]

As reported here, the mission has received preliminary approval from NASA but is undergoing further simulation due to the satellites that the Falcon 9 will also carry and their potential of harm to the ISS. We have not received final approval. Chris reported that the Russians are leaning towards being on board. I would guess that once the final findings and approval are ok'd that we will soon see a "real" launch date/window. 

You'd think with all the urgency of this first flight SpaceX would can the crappy satellites until the concept is proven.  They can launch these on any flight, why do they have to pick the critical, most freaking important flight of the whole commercial resuply program for "cling ons". 

[Robotbeat]

As reported here, the mission has received preliminary approval from NASA but is undergoing further simulation due to the satellites that the Falcon 9 will also carry and their potential of harm to the ISS. We have not received final approval. Chris reported that the Russians are leaning towards being on board. I would guess that once the final findings and approval are ok'd that we will soon see a "real" launch date/window. 

You'd think with all the urgency of this first flight SpaceX would can the crappy satellites until the concept is proven.  They can launch these on any flight, why do they have to pick the critical, most freaking important flight of the whole commercial resuply program for "cling ons". 

Because they are not operating on a cost-plus basis. They need to be profitable, and their other non-NASA customers are very important. If their other customers see that SpaceX always puts NASA ahead of them even when not strictly required, why would they want to do business with SpaceX?

[archangel689]

Becasue if nasa is spacex's only customer, they're a failure elon said

[baldusi]

Plus, those are validation satellites. They need them up there as fast as possible to validate the rest of the fleet.

[ugordan]

You'd think with all the urgency of this first flight SpaceX would can the crappy satellites until the concept is proven.  They can launch these on any flight, why do they have to pick the critical, most freaking important flight of the whole commercial resuply program for "cling ons". 

1. who are you to call Orbcomm "crappy satellites" ?

and

2. secondary sats don't matter because SpaceX is/was not ready to fly C3 in the first place yet

[mr. mark]

Obviously, we will need an update soon (hint Chris) and maybe we can get some clarification as to NASA and the Russian's status. Until then, sit tight, I have a feeling things will clear up sooner than later.

[Jason1701]

Are they going to static fire the F9 at the pad again, or are they finally done with that?

They've done a WDR but not static fire. My guess is they'll do a fire in December.

[Rocket Guy]

Yes a static fire is planned.

[kevin-rf]

Are they going to static fire the F9 at the pad again, or are they finally done with that?

They've done a WDR but not static fire. My guess is they'll do a fire in December.

Have they said they are going to do a hot fire? Maybe they will break with tradition...

[ugordan]

It was reported somewhere recently, although I can't seem to find it now, that they plan on doing another WDR after the whole stack is integrated. The fact no static fire was mentioned could be telling. Or not.

[demorcef]

You'd think with all the urgency of this first flight SpaceX would can the crappy satellites until the concept is proven.  They can launch these on any flight, why do they have to pick the critical, most freaking important flight of the whole commercial resuply program for "cling ons". 

1. who are you to call Orbcomm "crappy satellites" ?

They might be amazingly important satellites, but my point is that placing them on board a critical commercial resupply mission to prove the whole concept is a silly risk.  ISS is twisting in the wind until Dragon can pull this thing off.  It sounds like they are causing a delay in approval.  Stick those sats on another rocket later please Mr. Eton.

[rcoppola]

To me, it sounds like what a commercial business should be doing.
To make all of this work, SpaceX needs their private launch customers as much if not more then NASA. This is a test. No Cargo is being transported to the station. As important as this is, to a commercial entity, I would think they see it as a waste of finite resources to cycle through a perfectly good Falcon 9 and not be able to ultize all capabilities of the flight for both their Govt and commercial interests. It's efficiencies. It's why we are pushing LEO onto commercial. We need to allow them the flexibility. Otherwise, costs will go back up and we will be right back where we started.

[Lurker Steve]

As reported here, the mission has received preliminary approval from NASA but is undergoing further simulation due to the satellites that the Falcon 9 will also carry and their potential of harm to the ISS. We have not received final approval. Chris reported that the Russians are leaning towards being on board. I would guess that once the final findings and approval are ok'd that we will soon see a "real" launch date/window. 

You'd think with all the urgency of this first flight SpaceX would can the crappy satellites until the concept is proven.  They can launch these on any flight, why do they have to pick the critical, most freaking important flight of the whole commercial resuply program for "cling ons". 

The whole idea of flying the secondary payloads on this flight is flawed.

Sure, it costs SpaceX less to launch these sats as a secondary payload than flying them as a dedicated payload on their own F1, but these sats have caused extra steps in the approval process, and have delayed OrbComms use of these commerical sats. They aren't even going to be dropped off in the location that OrbComm wants, causing them to burn additional fuel.

OrbComm is supposed to get a dedicated flight to launch the rest of the constellation, but I don't believe anyone has seen that flight progressing other than a place holder on the manifest at spacex.com.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

If not now NASA won't allow secondaries later.

[rcoppola]

As reported here, the mission has received preliminary approval from NASA but is undergoing further simulation due to the satellites that the Falcon 9 will also carry and their potential of harm to the ISS. We have not received final approval. Chris reported that the Russians are leaning towards being on board. I would guess that once the final findings and approval are ok'd that we will soon see a "real" launch date/window. 

You'd think with all the urgency of this first flight SpaceX would can the crappy satellites until the concept is proven.  They can launch these on any flight, why do they have to pick the critical, most freaking important flight of the whole commercial resuply program for "cling ons". 

The whole idea of flying the secondary payloads on this flight is flawed.

Sure, it costs SpaceX less to launch these sats as a secondary payload than flying them as a dedicated payload on their own F1, but these sats have caused extra steps in the approval process, and have delayed OrbComms use of these commerical sats. They aren't even going to be dropped off in the location that OrbComm wants, causing them to burn additional fuel.

OrbComm is supposed to get a dedicated flight to launch the rest of the constellation, but I don't believe anyone has seen that flight progressing other than a place holder on the manifest at spacex.com.

I'm assuming OrbComm is aware of these trade offs and have signed off on them? And in so doing, is getting a launch discount? Or do we have any communications from OrbComm as to their displeasure? If not and everybody is on board, I don't see the problem..

[starsilk]

I don't think the second customer would want their launcher that close in an unhardened building anyway.

Might only need to harden the area of the building where the payload is during the other rocket's launch.  I know Murphy well, and he does seem to claim a lot of undue victories with his much-accursed law, but some statistics can be drawn around the odds of something landing perfectly to smite the other mission.  I'm sure insurance types could quote a rate...

Falcon 1, flight 1. fell out of the sky, hit the coral reef just offshore, and the satellite payload bounced back off the reef, and dropped right through the roof of their machine shop... maybe eager for another try?

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/2006/03/someones-looking-out-for-that.html

[JohnFornaro]

I'm assuming OrbComm is aware of these trade offs and have signed off on them? ... Or do we have any communications from OrbComm as to their displeasure? If not and everybody is on board, I don't see the problem...

That's the way I look at it too.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Does the figure of 1/7/12 still hold as the NET for the launch?

I suppose that I'm worried about how soon after that would CRS-01 have to fly and whether SpaceX can turn around LC-40 quickly enough.

Falcon 1, flight 1. fell out of the sky, hit the coral reef just offshore, and the satellite payload bounced back off the reef, and dropped right through the roof of their machine shop... maybe eager for another try?

A smart marketing rep could 'spin' that as a feature - Auto-return abort-sensitive payloads.

[Norm38]

If not now NASA won't allow secondaries later.

That is a great point, and it's time for NASA to admit that the game has changed.  They are buying a service yes, but that does not give them the right to call all the shots.  Do I get to tell United Airlines what secondary cargo my flight can carry when I buy a ticket?  No, United can fill the cargo hold as they see fit because it's their plane, not mine.

NASA needs to start accepting that there may be lots of secondary payloads on lots of flights, that SpaceX may do lots of things they don't like.  But SpaceX is a commercial enterprise trying to grow the market, and not just check through a list of Congressional mandates.  Doing everything the same old way won't cut it.

Being flexible is in NASAs best long term interest.  If they want to keep flying hardware and do anything interesting in space, then launch costs have to come down.  Demanding that your launch provider make less money doesn't help that goal any.