SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[ugordan]

I agree with OpsAnalyst here. Comments from people such as that blogger aren't really helping SpaceX, they are all too eager to jump at any opportunity to label the whole of NASA as a sluggish, bureaucratic beast. Blaming NASA and the Russians now even has a touch of hipocrisy, after all the delays SpaceX brought unto themselves, this is just a drop in the bucket.

Similar stuff to what happened with F9-01 when the USAF "conspired" to keep SpaceX delayed by not approving their FTS...

[Lars_J]

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

The odd thing about the plume impingement concerns, and why it apparently (my impression) has escalated recently is the *timing* of it. No one is surprised that a very thorough analysis has to be made and concerns addressed - But why is it happening (or re-occurring) at such a late stage?

The Draco thruster power and locations on the Dragon spacecraft has been known for over a year now. The same goes for the berthing location - Node 2 nadir.

So why is this a current hold-up, and why was it not resolved months ago?

[Robotbeat]

And actually, the claim that NASA contributed to the delay has support:

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.

C2/C3 was originally to fly to be compatible with the CCS R11 release of ISS software. However, ISS has had some software and hardware issues recently. C2/C3 will now fly to be compatible with an updated CCS R9 release. This required late changes to Dragon's software.

On another note: the article is now out of date. SpaceX delivered the final flight software to NASA about three days after the article was published, 11 days before the november 27 deadline.

[Comga]

We could just pull out old Mad Magazine issues and read Spy vs Spy.
It was a hyperbolic reaction to a thoughtless comment on an error-filled article.
It is funny how they both use "bureaucrat" as a slur against the other side.
There is no news here.  What we know has been posted earlier.

edit: spelling error corrected

[OpsAnalyst]

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!

Sorry, don't buy it.  The statement isn't 1% defensible, because the blogger has no clue what the issues are and hasn't bothered to find out.  Doesn't care. 

The commenter might've made a mistake, but you're taking me to task on the basis of a single line in a post that is clearly making a point that has NOTHING to do with SpaceX. And there's a heck of a difference between someone not bothering to discern a thing about technical issues but feeling no compunction whatsoever about passing judgement, and someone who clearly does know a thing or two and may simply have missed something that happened a couple of days earlier. Lighten up.

[OpsAnalyst]

We could just pull out old Mad Magazine issues and read Spy vs Spy.

[FinalFrontier]

This looks to be, at this time, much ado over an unsubstantiated rumor caused by a possible impingement issue. It's highly likely that they already cleared it, or are working to clear it now and that it won't mean a delay to anything like april, if there is any delay at all.



Stop posting rumors as if they are facts. Until NASA or Spacex makes an official statement of a delay, its not substantiated and could turn out to be pure fud.


And stop using said rumors to push your own personal biases (you know who you are). Its annoying.

[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!

Sorry, don't buy it.  The statement isn't 1% defensible, because the blogger has no clue what the issues are and hasn't bothered to find out.  Doesn't care. 

The commenter might've made a mistake, but you're taking me to task on the basis of a single line in a post that is clearly making a point that has NOTHING to do with SpaceX. And there's a heck of a difference between someone not bothering to discern a thing about technical issues but feeling no compunction whatsoever about passing judgement, and someone who clearly does know a thing or two and may simply have missed something that happened a couple of days earlier. Lighten up.

Okay, sorry about my hyperbolic reaction. You're right that I should lighten up.

The claim that NASA is a big, clunky bureaucracy is a cliche. We can all acknowledge that. But just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it isn't true in this case.

Also: Don't you think that those in any clunky bureaucracy have a long list of reasons why there should be so much red tape? Just because someone posts technical reasons doesn't mean the process needs to be that clunky. Also, on blogs it's not too uncommon to come across the blogger's opinions.

[OpsAnalyst]

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!

Sorry, don't buy it.  The statement isn't 1% defensible, because the blogger has no clue what the issues are and hasn't bothered to find out.  Doesn't care. 

The commenter might've made a mistake, but you're taking me to task on the basis of a single line in a post that is clearly making a point that has NOTHING to do with SpaceX. And there's a heck of a difference between someone not bothering to discern a thing about technical issues but feeling no compunction whatsoever about passing judgement, and someone who clearly does know a thing or two and may simply have missed something that happened a couple of days earlier. Lighten up.

Okay, sorry about my hyperbolic reaction. You're right that I should lighten up.

The claim that NASA is a big, clunky bureaucracy is a cliche. We can all acknowledge that. But just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it isn't true in this case.

Also: Don't you think that those in any clunky bureaucracy have a long list of reasons why there should be so much red tape? Just because someone posts technical reasons doesn't mean the process needs to be that clunky. Also, on blogs it's not too uncommon to come across the blogger's opinions.

Agree with all that.

Look, the blogger doesn't know frak. (I would like to point out, Chris, that I actually typed "f" "r" "a" "k" )  The responder was obviously torqued and who knows why, really.  I must confess I've been fighting battles since Jan. 28 of 2010 to retain some capabilities inside NASA that those who were casually tossing around terms like "standing armies" and "inefficient" etc., did not consider valuable _because they didn't have a clue_.  The unfortunate effect of that was to render those capabilities unavailable to those _commercial companies_ who might've wanted to leverage them later - which, as taxpayer-funded capabilities, they should've had every right to do.   So when I see things painted "broad brush" on this topic, it frankly ticks me off too. Hence "scathing".

In this case there are bunch of issues that AvWeek didn't cover (and there are errors, as pointed out elsewhere).  The responder was right about at least 3 federal agencies being involved - it's the FCC, the FAA, and NASA.  It would be good if the process wasn't so clunky, I agree.  But in this case, those agencies first have to figure out who has responsibility for what, where that responsibility starts and ends, and unsnarl regulations that were built in silos relative to the issues at hand.  And it's never been done before.  So it's going to take time.  Sorry.  That's life.

Next, you've got impingement.  I'm an old STS and ISS hand, been down this road. Lars_J's question about how come impingement is an issue now is a good one.  For those who don't know the history, there are pretty stiff "prox-ops" (proximity operations) protocols re: ISS.  (Krystal, anyone?)  Boeing's been working visiting vehicle protocols for a few years now.  SpaceX interfaces with Boeing and ISS and MOD and...(etc) as will any vehicle, so everyone certainly knew the score.  I'm curious about that too but I don't doubt that it's popped up again for a real reason.

Re: FSW - well, I survived the ADA wars in the days of the "ISS Standard Out" (that means ISS FSW standard load delivery - Somebody else can talk about this; I've repressed much of the trauma.)  With regard to SpaceX, Gerst was talking about deliveries re: schedule.  Cool.  But we all know that the load ain't final 'til it's final.  That means, tested, fixed if needed, integrated, certified, "gone gold" (that's a configuration management term) - and unfortunately SpaceX did itself a bit of harm here by making some statements about producing FSW that didn't require testing because it didn't have any errors.  Even in the unlikely event that this is true (ever _done_ software engineering?) - the notion that anyone would skip testing is not much in touch with reality.  It's pretty obvious from SpaceX's subsequent damage control statements (which even got Gwynne Shotwell into the act) that the individual in question "misspoke himself" - aka, certainly didn't represent the official SpaceX view.  But that sets up all kinds of flurry and angst and then it's gotta be worked through.  That's tough in a situation where folks are just coming to trust each other, but to everyone's credit it appears that they're doing that.

This is a really tough tough tough business.  "Margins" are nearly mythology, though they do exist.  It's always going to be a methodical assessment, and that takes time.  Now, to quote my friend Wayne Hale, that doesn't always mean we have to fly "with suspenders _and_ a belt", but particularly when one is pathfinding, one should expect that this sort of thing is going to happen.  Hopefully, as it happens more and more, the cycles will shorten because we'll just be smarter.

I'm really not one for "either/or" thinking.  I prefer to think of things in terms of capabilities, how they are arrayed, what their function(s) are, how they interact, what possibilities they offer.  I'm a systems engineer, and a psychologist.  Both have served me well in this business, as they would in any business involving complex systems and human beings.  I was on SpaceDev's mailing list from Day 1; supported SpaceX from the beginning, negotiated my first Space Act Agreement for commercialization of NASA facilities in 1990; AND think the shuttle was retired way too early (should've been commercialized to transition it), AND support the development of the SLS/MPCV.  It is the nature of governments that they take time, have red tape, etc.  It is the nature of commercial entities that they try to streamline, sometimes too close to the bone.  In _this_ business, we know there's small margin so those of us who have been around a while worry about management of that little tiny margin and those of us who are looking toward the future (often the same people) also worry about so burdening the process with regulation that it can't evolve.   

This is a really long answer - probably too long.  You didn't ask for this but if I were to leave you with anything (and as a former college prof, I just can't help myself) it would be to counsel patience.  There are some REALLY smart people trying to work all this.  But it will, it absolutely will, take time - and whether that is for engineering reasons or regulatory reasons or purely "human" reasons, it is simply the nature of the beast.

[Robotbeat]

OpsAnalyst: Thanks for the thoughtful (and informative) response. Your post here is an example of exactly the sort of constructive dialogue that we all come here to NSF for. Eloquent.

[Rocket Science]

Don’t you feel better now Robot, now that you inhaled some helium…

[Robotbeat]

Don’t you feel better now Robot, now that you inhaled some helium…

Robots don't breathe.

[Rocket Science]

Don’t you feel better now Robot, now that you inhaled some helium…

Robots don't breathe.

Haha...

[wolfpack]

Yikes! Ruffled feathers...

The flight happens when it happens. NASA needs CRS to work, so they need this flight. It wouldn't make any sense to "conspire" against SpaceX or whatever the implications are. I think STS-135 removed a lot of schedule pressure for resupply so there's time for an abundance of caution, which is what is happening. If it flies in March or April things will be just fine. If they have to drop the Orbcomm's, they will. There is no need to make that decision until it needs to be made.

Imagine if things were rushed and SpaceX had an accident in January, either on ascent or in orbit. That's it! The end. Game over. Airlines (albeit morbidly) rate themselves in number of crashes to extinction. Smaller ones are one-crash airlines. Larger organizations are two or maybe three. Private rocket companies? ONE and DONE.

Let's be safe, get that Dragon on orbit and berthed to ISS so we can have American rockets launched from America resupplying America's half of the ISS. I will be happy whenever that happens.

[go4mars]

if ... SpaceX had an accident in January ... That's it! The end. Game over. Airlines rate themselves in number of crashes to extinction. Private rocket companies? ONE and DONE.

I agree with be safe, "measure twice, cut once" sentiment, but I really doubt a mis-hap on the next launch would be the end of SpaceX.  There's a good reason for T-shirts, tang and TP.  Beyond it being early days for F9, expectations for reliability are a lot different for rockets than commercial mass-transit airlines.

[Jason1701]

Imagine if things were rushed and SpaceX had an accident in January, either on ascent or in orbit. That's it! The end. Game over. Airlines (albeit morbidly) rate themselves in number of crashes to extinction. Smaller ones are one-crash airlines. Larger organizations are two or maybe three. Private rocket companies? ONE and DONE.

I disagree. Orbital has had many failures with its commercial rockets and survived them all.

[wolfpack]

The stakes are higher this time. Could they survive an F9 blowing up on ascent? Yes, probably. Could they survive a Dragon running into the ISS and compromising a module or truss segment? No, I don't think so.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Imagine if things were rushed and SpaceX had an accident in January, either on ascent or in orbit. That's it! The end. Game over. Airlines (albeit morbidly) rate themselves in number of crashes to extinction. Smaller ones are one-crash airlines. Larger organizations are two or maybe three. Private rocket companies? ONE and DONE.

I disagree. Orbital has had many failures with its commercial rockets and survived them all.

Orbital has other revenue streams (most notably spacecraft construction) to keep their heads above water.  If SpaceX's space launch business pancakes due to lack of customer confidence then it's game over for them.

[mmeijeri]

If SpaceX's space launch business pancakes due to lack of customer confidence then it's game over for them.

They have CRS.

[Kaputnik]

Imagine if things were rushed and SpaceX had an accident in January, either on ascent or in orbit. That's it! The end. Game over. Airlines (albeit morbidly) rate themselves in number of crashes to extinction. Smaller ones are one-crash airlines. Larger organizations are two or maybe three. Private rocket companies? ONE and DONE.

I disagree. Orbital has had many failures with its commercial rockets and survived them all.

Orbital has other revenue streams (most notably spacecraft construction) to keep their heads above water.  If SpaceX's space launch business pancakes due to lack of customer confidence then it's game over for them.

Have Orbital seen their customers lose confidence and lost out on LV business? No.