SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[Jim]

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.

Who says NASA hasn't and is doing everything you said?

Also, what says that NASA doesn't own all the capability on a COTS or CRS flight?  NASA does own all the LV capability on an NLS mission.

[demorcef]

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.

I don't know why this is even being considered for the first Dragon flight to the ISS.  Why would SpaceX put the contract at risk by sticking on some secondary payload at all on this pathfinder flight?  Playing the odds a wee bit I think.

[ugordan]

Not again.

[A_M_Swallow]

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.

I don't know why this is even being considered for the first Dragon flight to the ISS.  Why would SpaceX put the contract at risk by sticking on some secondary payload at all on this pathfinder flight?  Playing the odds a wee bit I think.

@demorcef oldAtlas_Eguy answered your question in reply #456

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

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.

I don't know why this is even being considered for the first Dragon flight to the ISS.  Why would SpaceX put the contract at risk by sticking on some secondary payload at all on this pathfinder flight?  Playing the odds a wee bit I think.

@demorcef oldAtlas_Eguy answered your question in reply #456

Yes, this is a certification flight to certify that the system is safe to use in all its complexities, including interactions with carrying secondary sats.

[Antares]

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.

Usually I censor myself, but your words are reckless.  Think before you type.

How does letting these things run into Station play in the American media?  NASA has a far greater duty to protect their (and other countries') $100B investment than to allow SpaceX to make additional money at the Station's risk.  If SpaceX can't demonstrate they won't run into the Station to a low enough likelihood, they won't go.  And, any secondary has to demonstrate it won't risk mission success to a primary.  This is standard mission integration work for any launch with multiple payloads.

This is a technical issue not a programmatic one.  Big bad NASA is being rightly conservative here.

[joek]

If not now NASA won't allow secondaries later.

Do you have a reference?  The COTS SAA and the CRS contract don't mention any such stipulation or expectation (edit: that I can find).   Thanks.

[A_M_Swallow]

If not now NASA won't allow secondaries later.

Do you have a reference?  The COTS SAA and the CRS contract don't mention any such stipulation or expectation (edit: that I can find).   Thanks.

oldAtlas_Eguy is just using common sense.   Bureaucracies do not like taking risks.  SpaceX's lawyers will have pointed out that the contracts do not grant SpaceX a right to add secondary cargoes after the Certification flight.

[joek]

oldAtlas_Eguy is just using common sense.   Bureaucracies do not like taking risks.  SpaceX's lawyers will have pointed out that the contracts do not grant SpaceX a right to add secondary cargoes after the Certification flight.

Understand the basis for NASA's caution.  And while including the OrbComm secondaries may be a complication that would better be left for a future flight, that's far from saying secondaries have to be on this flight, or that their omission would preclude such in the future.

What if there weren't any secondary payloads available for this flight?  Would SpaceX be forced to put in mass simulators just to demonstrate and "certify" that capability, or be banned from including them in the future?  That makes no sense.  Moreover there is nothing in the COTS or CRS contracts to suggest that is required, or that the presence or absence of secondaries will set a precedent for future flights.  In short:

1. Common sense != legal stipulation
2. COTS != CRS
3. COTS SpaceX demo-1 had secondaries; ergo, COTS does not preclude secondaries.
4. COTS SpaceX demo-2/3 is not a "certification" of the entire stack.
5. Certification is visiting vehicle (VV, Dragon+trunk) to ISS.
6. CRS is a pay-for-service cargo delivery to/from the ISS (nominally priced based on $/kg).

NASA may buy complete CRS flights and disallow secondaries (there is mention of "per mission" pricing in the CRS contract, although details are redacted).  However, at present nominal CRS services appear to be priced and contracted on a $/kg basis.

Again, what is the basis for asserting that SpaceX COTS demo-2/3 is a certification- or precedent-setting flight with regards to secondary payloads?  Citations appreciated.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}

Again, what is the basis for asserting that SpaceX COTS demo-2/3 is a certification- or precedent-setting flight with regards to secondary payloads?  Citations appreciated.

The name COTS demo 2/3 is a sufficient cite in its own right to it being a certification flight.

According to its Space Act Agreement if SpaceX does not achieve Milestone 19 (COTS demo flight 2) it does not get paid.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/216459main_spacex_amend_2.pdf

If the secondary payloads are on board and declared to be on board  after a successful flight their presence automatically makes having secondary payloads a TRL 9.

[Jorge]

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.

Usually I censor myself, but your words are reckless.  Think before you type.

How does letting these things run into Station play in the American media?  NASA has a far greater duty to protect their (and other countries') $100B investment than to allow SpaceX to make additional money at the Station's risk.  If SpaceX can't demonstrate they won't run into the Station to a low enough likelihood, they won't go.  And, any secondary has to demonstrate it won't risk mission success to a primary.  This is standard mission integration work for any launch with multiple payloads.

This is a technical issue not a programmatic one.  Big bad NASA is being rightly conservative here.

Agreed. The secondaries were only an issue because their post-deploy orbits potentially conjuncted with ISS and NASA made SpaceX prove there was no risk of collision.

[joek]

The name COTS demo 2/3 is a sufficient cite in its own right to it being a certification flight.

False.  Certainly nothing in the COTS SAA agreement, as the term "certification" (in the original or subsequent amendments) does not appear to apply.  Nor could it--beyond normal programmatic concerns--as clearly stated by the NASA IG on several occassions, and thus the rationale for why NASA is not using SAA's for CCDev.

Again: COTS != CRS.  Requirements are levied against the delivery vehicle and delivered cargo via dragon+trunk with respect to ISS.

According to its Space Act Agreement if SpaceX does not achieve Milestone 19 (COTS demo flight 2) it does not get paid.

Correct.  It's a milestone/performance-based payment. If SpaceX can do that with secondary payloads, they still get paid.  If SpaceX screws up and doesn't perform (regardless of whether there is a secondary payload), they don't get paid.  So what's your point?

If the secondary payloads are on board and declared to be on board  after a successful flight their presence automatically makes having secondary payloads a TRL 9.

So tell me where in the COTS SAA or CRS contracts there is a requirement--or even a suggestion--that secondary payloads must be demonstrated to be at TRL 9 (or any TRL for that matter) before they are allowed on subsequent flights?

I certainly can't find anything in the available documents to support such an assertion.  Altho I admit I may be dense, unless you have some specific and credible citations to back up your assertions (and what you have provided so far is less than weak), please excuse me for dismissing them as arm-waving.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

It’s a matter of learning the paperwork and procedures. SpaceX and NASA have the time and no history to say “no it can’t be done”. Flight history is a powerful incentive to not make changes. ISS safety gets paranoid when a change is made unless the safety concerns have been thoroughly studied. I would be too, so this is not a disparity on NASA ISS safety personnel and management.

It’s not to say that NASA would not approve CRS flying secondaries later if they were not flown on this flight but that organizational inertia builds up against new risks for a system that already is flying.

All domestic launches are evaluated for their risks to ISS. Actually the entire flight plan is evaluated to risk of all operational assets not just ISS, though this is not an in-depth analysis and is usually an item performed by the launching operator and submitted for clearance for flight. Most pose no risk if the maximum possible apogee will not reach ISS orbital altitude or little risk being in other inclinations, but that is not to say that there is no risk just that the risks are very low. If the orbital inclination is the same as ISS the risks to ISS are much higher than other launches, which is why this flight C2/C3 is receiving much more attention on the secondaries than on C1. Every CRS flight that carries secondaries will go through this (actually every CRS flight will be evaluated with or without secondaries as per ISS safety evaluation procedures and requirements, secondaries just add more work).

SSP 51700 http://paso.esa.int/3_Payload_Safety/SSP-51700%20Baseline_2.pdf

Most of the requirements are for VV’s and their payloads (payloads include free flyining automated sats carried by the VV) as well as the risks of associated orbital debris that can be caused by the VV and payloads (secondaries can be considered in this category). Once done both SpaceX and NASA will be able to accomplish the evaluation much quicker and easier since the simulations will be existing that only needs a new dataset for the secondaries capabilities and orbital parameters. Trying to do all of this initial simulation and studies setup for the first time on a CRS flight could cause a significant delay of the CRS flight while the studies are finished and results are evaluated by NASA management without any guarantee that NASA and International Partners would approve. Even later secondaries on a CRS flight after doing it for C2/C3 still does not carry a guaranteed approval. It can also still cause a delay even after they have experience doing it for C2/C3, but the schedule risks for the CRS flight is lower the more experience gained in doing the analysis while flying secondaries.

[iamlucky13]

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.

You don't have the same contract with United Airlines as NASA does with SpaceX. You have a 42 page contract you were presented with at the time you purchased your ticket (and if you're like most people, didn't even glance at, much less read and understand before you clicked "Ok" - side note: generally not a huge worry for high-volume services like this because you can bet several other customers have read the contract, and word would spread if it were objectionable).

NASA's contract is more similar to that of a charter flight where the plane is committed a customer's specific use.

Besides, you do have the right to tell them indirectly via FAA regulations, the democratic process, and your right to choose your carrier as you see fit.

Ever try checking a satellite with a full load of hydrazine with your luggage when you fly United? I guarantee you won't be allowed to because of the fore-mentioned regulations.

Regardless, half of the above is besides the point, because it ultimately goes back to the fact that SpaceX has a contract with NASA that gives NASA and their partners (including Russia) authority to deny SpaceX permission to approach the station if they're not satisfied that the risks have been shown to be appropriately low.

And on the other side of the table, SpaceX is still seeking permission to carry these satellites because they obviously believe they can satisfy NASA et al's concerns. I think some folks are getting more hung up on this than they need to.

[mr. mark]

Launch January 12th. January 7th at earliest. February most likely...

The Dragon cargo vehicle for the upcoming demonstration mission arrived at the Florida launch site Oct. 23. The Dragon's trunk, or service module, arrived at Cape Canaveral on Nov. 11

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/111113nextyear/

[ugordan]

So, we are in the "two months to launch" phase once again...

[woods170]

So, we are in the "two months to launch" phase once again...

Yes, this time courtesy of NASA not having it's ISS software in order.

[ugordan]

Yes, this time courtesy of NASA not having it's ISS software in order.

That's not the impression I got from reading that article.

[apace]

Yes, this time courtesy of NASA not having it's ISS software in order.

That's not the impression I got from reading that article.

Yeah, looks like, they had a very early software running on their Dragon at the first flight ;-)

[Garrett]

So, we are in the "two months to launch" phase once again...

Yes, but a more realistic two months this time. All Falcon/Dragon physical components are at the Cape now. All that's left is the final Dragon software iteration, not that that's a minor thing.

I see from the SFN launch schedule that a Progress is earmarked for launch on Jan 25, a HTV on Feb 18, a Cygnus on Feb 23 and an ATV on March 7. That's a lot of cargo missions in such a short time span, though I imagine those dates do not take into account the recent delays.

Would any further slips in the COTS 2/3 launch cause it to be pushed out by several months due to conflicts with the other cargo missions?