SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[kevin-rf]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/17/spacex_delay_funding_cut/


Delayed to at least April 2012

Hardly a credible source, and it gives off hints of not understanding CRS-1 and C2/C3 are not the same mission.

Ditto, it ain't April until Jim types April!

[Chris-A]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/11/17/06.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Demo%20Flight%20To%20ISS%20May%20Slip

Miscellaneous issues. Draco and ISS photovoltaic panel interference is new.

[DigitalMan]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/11/17/06.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Demo%20Flight%20To%20ISS%20May%20Slip

Miscellaneous issues. Draco and ISS photovoltaic panel interference is new.

I don't see how this is a new it seems like a pretty standard concern to me to make sure there are no impingement or clearance issues.

[Comga]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/11/17/06.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Demo%20Flight%20To%20ISS%20May%20Slip

Miscellaneous issues. Draco and ISS photovoltaic panel interference is new.

"SpaceX Demo Flight To ISS May Slip"

Ya think?

Given that the contrary statement can never be true, this is guaranteed to be true regardless of any developments.  Ditto for "At the end of this month, we will know better.”

The rest of the article has a lot of errors for such a short piece, and atypical of AvWeek. 
The "software" statement confuses the Dragon and ISS software issue with the Orbcomm satellite issue. 
Do we believe that NASA did not yet "brief its Russian partners on the SpaceX mission strategy"?
Orbital will not have a Cygnus on their first launch.

[cambrianera]

The new pictures of COTS 2/3 Dragon from below show that the shiny aspect of the thermal shield is only on the external tiles.
Probably this is a water protection coating (as already discussed), because the other parts of the shield stand protected by the trunk.
Nevertheless also the other parts of the shield have a different appearance (white, they were light brown).

[Lurker Steve]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/11/17/06.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Demo%20Flight%20To%20ISS%20May%20Slip

Miscellaneous issues. Draco and ISS photovoltaic panel interference is new.

I don't see how this is a new it seems like a pretty standard concern to me to make sure there are no impingement or clearance issues.

You would think that someone in NASA would have investigated and cleared the impingement issues months ago. This flight was originally on the schedule for what, June ? Did they need the final Dragon flight software to determine when/if the thrusters would fire ? The arm on the SSRMS is only so long, it should be fairly easy to determine how close the Dragon and it's thrusters get to the solar panels.

[spectre9]

April now?

This is a complete joke.

It makes NASA look like fools and Space X look incompetent.

[Jim]

April now?

This is a complete joke.

It makes NASA look like fools and Space X look incompetent.

You are too quick to pass judgment and also make mountains out of molehills.  Your posts don't reflect kindly on you either.

[spectre9]

You think I like to troll Jim?

I'm nowhere near you. 

I will take your advice but you need to take it yourself.

I'll be nicer if you do it too?

[Antares]

Who says the data were available for an earlier analysis?

Who said the people who needed to produce the data earlier weren't doing something else that was also required to be completed for ISS approach?

This is the real world where resources are finite.

This is why I've been telling everyone to temper their expectations.  C'est la guerre.  Space is hard.  Get used to it.

[butters]

I thought that SpaceX has recently submitted their flight software to NASA over a week ahead of schedule. So the ball would be in NASA's court right now, unless I'm not aware of some other deliverable which NASA is waiting to receive from SpaceX.

If SpaceX has already delivered their flight software, which NASA wasn't expecting until Nov 27, then why is NASA hinting that the schedule is slipping to the right? Could they have already identified concerns from the software they received? Or has NASA underestimated the time it will take them to do all of the analysis they want to do before signing off on the launch?

[iamlucky13]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/17/spacex_delay_funding_cut/


Delayed to at least April 2012

Hardly a credible source, and it gives off hints of not understanding CRS-1 and C2/C3 are not the same mission.

You should also take a moment to appreciate being informed that hydro/lox is "old technology" compared to kero/lox, and that the Delta IV is 1960's technology. 

[iamlucky13]

I thought that SpaceX has recently submitted their flight software to NASA over a week ahead of schedule. So the ball would be in NASA's court right now, unless I'm not aware of some other deliverable which NASA is waiting to receive from SpaceX.

If SpaceX has already delivered their flight software, which NASA wasn't expecting until Nov 27, then why is NASA hinting that the schedule is slipping to the right? Could they have already identified concerns from the software they received? Or has NASA underestimated the time it will take them to do all of the analysis they want to do before signing off on the launch?

If SpaceX's software doesn't pass testing and needs further revisions, that would one obvious reason. It's not possible to know this yet, but like the official stated, we will know soon.

[mmeijeri]

Hasn't NASA recently laid off its FSW team? Who is doing the review?

[Jim]

Hasn't NASA recently laid off its FSW team? Who is doing the review?

There isn't a monolithic NASA FSW team.  It was the shuttle team that was laid of, there are many other teams, such as ISS, LSP, etc.

[OpsAnalyst]

There's an appropriately scathing (IMHO) comment over at SpaceKSC that lays out the issues re: 2/3 FSW and impingement concerns, and why they're being worked.

http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2011/11/nasa-russia-may-delay-spacex-flight.html#comment-form

[Robotbeat]

There's an appropriately scathing (IMHO) comment over at SpaceKSC that lays out the issues re: 2/3 FSW and impingement concerns, and why they're being worked.

http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2011/11/nasa-russia-may-delay-spacex-flight.html#comment-form

Except it's a FALSE comment, because SpaceX has (very recently, but on or before the 15th, which is several days before the comment was placed and a week or so before the deadline) delivered its final software load to NASA according to Gerst:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25229.msg829840#msg829840

[I deleted an unnecessarily hyperbolic comment of mine.]

[Space Pete]

Check the facts before repeating the SpaceX-hate, thanks!

Well, I wouldn't call it "SpaceX-hate" - I support SpaceX 100%, yet I fully agree with the comment in question. I too am tired of seeing non-technical people (who for sure have a value in the space business) dismiss legitimate technical concerns as "bureaucracy", when they have no knowledge whatsoever of what they write about.

Do people that say such things really think that their own 2-minute back-of-the-napkin style assessments are more detailed or in-depth than those by the experts at NASA? I don't think so.

[OpsAnalyst]

There's an appropriately scathing (IMHO) comment over at SpaceKSC that lays out the issues re: 2/3 FSW and impingement concerns, and why they're being worked.

http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2011/11/nasa-russia-may-delay-spacex-flight.html#comment-form

Except it's a FALSE comment, because SpaceX has (very recently, but on or before the 15th, which is several days before the comment was placed) delivered its final software load to NASA according to Gerst:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25229.msg829840#msg829840

Check the facts before repeating the SpaceX-hate, thanks!

The description of load delivery is only one of several issues cited, justifying why the additional time to launch might be needed.  I'm not following this issue, so OK, the commenter is incorrect about the load delivery - but how is the rest of the comment "SpaceX hate"?  It doesn't seem aimed at SpaceX at all, but at the blogger who appeared to be less than interested in reasons why the delay might be appropriate than at getting away with a one-line, provocative characterization of both NASA and the Russians.

That's why I viewed the comment as appropriately scathing.

[Robotbeat]

A "scathing" comment purporting to offer a better representation of the facts by giving misleadingly-specific but false details is worse than a statement which may in fact be mere opinion (i.e. that the delay is because of undue bureaucracy). Pot. Kettle. Black.

If you're going to criticize someone for not making a 100% defensible statement (like that the delay is due to NASA bureaucracy), at least don't spread demonstrably false information!