SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[happyflower]

Why is it that Roscosmos and RSC Energia have so much influence about a US space ship arriving at the US segment of the ISS, but NASA didnt have this much influence about the Russians taking up tourists to their section against NASA wishes?

[RocketJack]

Why is it that Roscosmos and RSC Energia have so much influence about a US space ship arriving at the US segment of the ISS, but NASA didnt have this much influence about the Russians taking up tourists to their section against NASA wishes?

Russians took up spaceflight participants in the Soyuz. This is a new vehicle approaching the station. ATV and HTV went through the same scrutiny.

[happyflower]

Why is it that Roscosmos and RSC Energia have so much influence about a US space ship arriving at the US segment of the ISS, but NASA didnt have this much influence about the Russians taking up tourists to their section against NASA wishes?

Russians took up spaceflight participants in the Soyuz. This is a new vehicle approaching the station. ATV and HTV went through the same scrutiny.

With all due respect to the soyuz, its the only space ship that has crashed into a space station.

[pippin]

With all due respect to the soyuz, its the only space ship that has crashed into a space station.

So what's wrong with the Russians not wanting to see that record broken? They probably learned their lesson.

[woods170]

Why is it that Roscosmos and RSC Energia have so much influence about a US space ship arriving at the US segment of the ISS, but NASA didnt have this much influence about the Russians taking up tourists to their section against NASA wishes?

Russians took up spaceflight participants in the Soyuz. This is a new vehicle approaching the station. ATV and HTV went through the same scrutiny.

With all due respect to the soyuz, its the only space ship that has crashed into a space station.

Minor nit: it was the unmanned cargo version Progress that crashed into Mir.

[happyflower]

My point was simply that accidents could happen. Even with a system that is fully vetted.

Woods170 point taken. However, the two seem to be more alike than different.

Pippin you are probably correct. But maybe there are other reasons as well. So far the reasons Russia has come up with to delay Dragon have been less than spectacular (not enough data.. but the data is good. etc...). Just saying safety doesn’t seem to be the main reason anyway. Lets face it NASA is much more risk averse than the Russians. So if NASA decides that it’s safe, seems unusual that the Russians will bring up safety concerns. In the past year the Russian space program has been less than safe. I hope that they turn this critical eye onto themselves as well.

I do appreciate the ISS management being careful. I have no problem with that. The Dragon will eventually fly (SpaceX is already way behind their own schedule, so a few more months wont be that huge). But are we all sure that ATV and HTV went through the same delays as Dragon? I don’t know. I’m just asking.

I think what I’m trying to say is that the Russian space program is in a state of flux. I'm sure they are not exactly ecstatic about the possibility of losing US human transportation to the ISS (economically speaking). This may very well be the first step towards that eventuality.

[Kaputnik]

My point was simply that accidents could happen. Even with a system that is fully vetted.

Actually that's not quite true. The Progress crashed into Mir's Spektr module during a test approach using a manual docking attempt, with handheld rangefinders, as they were seeing if they could dispense with the expensive automated docking system. This was of course in the bad old late 90s when the Russian space program was not in good shape and financially struggling.

[pippin]

Pippin you are probably correct. But maybe there are other reasons as well. So far the reasons Russia has come up with to delay Dragon have been less than spectacular (not enough data.. but the data is good. etc...). Just saying safety doesn’t seem to be the main reason anyway. Lets face it NASA is much more risk averse than the Russians. So if NASA decides that it’s safe, seems unusual that the Russians will bring up safety concerns.

Do you KNOW for sure that NASA has decided it's safe? Also, NASA will probably want to be asked, too, whenever the Russians decide to dock with a newly designed craft.

My main issue with all of this is that I smell blame game here, I seriously don't believe this is a political issue, I seriously do believe that SpaceX is simply not ready, yet. So far, they've (publicly) tried to put the blame for their own delays on somebody else for every single launch. Remember how they were blaming Vandenberg Range for delays of the 1st Falcon 1 flight and then it took them YEARS to actually get the rocket ready even after that.
And they've done the same thing with range safety on the Cape, too, when they made the public believe lazy bureaucrats were the reason for delays, saying they could not get an approval and the reason WHY they could not get an approval is that they were simply not ready to provide the necessary data - not because that requirement was new to them or excessive or something but simply because they were not ready.

I simply don't believe this "it's the Russian's" stuff. I believe it's SpaceX and if _I_ were the Russians I would not let a company with such a communication policy near my space station, too, if they are not willing to comply to my safety rules because you just can't trust them to know what they are doing. And that's even though I believe that SpaceX _does_ know what they are doing (internally), but they have a tendency to be overly optimistic (which is actually good in their position) and to communicate too aggressively.

[kevin-rf]

With all due respect to the soyuz, its the only space ship that has crashed into a space station.

So what's wrong with the Russians not wanting to see that record broken? They probably learned their lesson.

And the "Hard" docking during Apollo-Soyuz? The Russian's where quite upset about it at the time.

There is more risk than the Dragon missing the docking ring and getting tangled in an ISS module.

[Ben the Space Brit]

With all due respect to the soyuz, its the only space ship that has crashed into a space station.

So what's wrong with the Russians not wanting to see that record broken? They probably learned their lesson.

And the "Hard" docking during Apollo-Soyuz? The Russian's where quite upset about it at the time.

There is more risk than the Dragon missing the docking ring and getting tangled in an ISS module.

Not a serious problem: Cargo Dragon parks well out of the way and is berthed by the SSRMS.  Crewed Dragon should have at least one pilot as a backup if automated rendezvous and docking goes bye-bye.

[douglas100]

With all due respect to the soyuz, its the only space ship that has crashed into a space station.

It was a Progress not a Soyuz.

[Jason1701]

With all due respect to the soyuz, its the only space ship that has crashed into a space station.

So what's wrong with the Russians not wanting to see that record broken? They probably learned their lesson.

And the "Hard" docking during Apollo-Soyuz? The Russian's where quite upset about it at the time.

There is more risk than the Dragon missing the docking ring and getting tangled in an ISS module.

What happened with the hard docking?

[hop]

But are we all sure that ATV and HTV went through the same delays as Dragon? I don’t know. I’m just asking.

Look at the ATV and and HTV development schedules compared to Dragon. They weren't delayed by the Russians that I know of, but the schedule was a lot longer and all the partners were on board from the start. In the case of ATV, the Russians obviously had deep insight into the vehicle. I would add that there is no real evidence the Russians have been a major hold up for Dragon.

I think what I’m trying to say is that the Russian space program is in a state of flux. I'm sure they are not exactly ecstatic about the possibility of losing US human transportation to the ISS (economically speaking).

It's absurd to think this has anything to do with approving the COTS flight. Sure, the Russians could delay Dragon on a few months. So what ? What would it buy them ? For your theory to work, the Russians would have to convince the US to abandon developing crew vehicles entirely. They aren't going to accomplish that by delaying the COTS flight, and it's ridiculous to think that they could delay it indefinitely with made-up safety concerns. Eventually NASA would say enough is enough and start escalating it politically. If there is one thing that would get Congress behind commercial crew, this is probably it...

edit:
BTW, I'm not ruling out the possibility that someone in the Russian program could play games with the COTS flight approval. What I'm sick of the absurd suggestion that this would have a significant impact on when the Russians lose their crew transport monopoly.

[Norm38]

Norm38's assumption is multifariously naive.  New systems (in anything, not just space) have more unknowns and larger error bars than ones that have been operated many times.  So this is new analysis that hasn't been done before.  Last, one hasn't experienced the true joys of regulation (or government mission assurance in this case) until one has sat on both sides of the table trying to figure out what the risk of something is and coming to an agreement between the government and the private sector on how to analyze that risk.  Add those 3 up, while people are trying to do everything else in getting a spacecraft to go to Station for the first time (SpaceX/NASA) and/or operate and protect the Station (NASA) in their day jobs... it's easy to see how it could take a while.  Space is still hard.  Hand-wavers need not apply.

If this was the 60's and the analysis was being done for the very first time with slide rules, I'd agree with you.  But this isn't the first time two orbits will cross, we have experience and better tools now.  Yes regulation takes time.  Yes getting it right takes time.  If there were growing pains, it'll be better next time.  I have no problem with that.

If the error bars are larger and hardware is new, then make sure ISS is on the other side of the planet when the Orbcomms cross it's orbit.  No one's planning a fly by and LEO isn't a small place.  The point is, this shouldn't be viewed as an impossible task.  It's supposed to be routine.

My post was mostly for the claims of "OMG, Elon's greed is going to destroy the ISS!  How dare he carrry a secondary payload and jeopardize the entire mission?"  I think that can be put to rest now.

[Robotbeat]

With all due respect to the soyuz, its the only space ship that has crashed into a space station.

It was a Progress not a Soyuz.

And let's also keep things in perspective: there were no casualties as a result of that, and the space station itself survived (and even avoided abandonment--though narrowly), and even some of the functionality of the damaged module was partially restored (solar power). This is also one of the benefits of a modular design, by the way.

That said... It was pretty bad. All three on board could have died and the station lost. As it is, the whole space station lost power temporarily after they had to disconnect the power cables to Spektr and was tumbling uncontrolled through space for a little bit and the crew even lost radio contact with the ground temporarily. It was totally unnecessary, though. It was caused by unnecessary and careless testing of the manual docking system with Progress (not a failure of the automatic system).

Makes total sense that having two trained crew members available on ISS to help with Dragon is a requirement with this in mind.

[Jim]

1.  If this was the 60's and the analysis was being done for the very first time with slide rules, I'd agree with you.  But this isn't the first time two orbits will cross, we have experience and better tools now.  Yes regulation takes time.  Yes getting it right takes time.  If there were growing pains, it'll be better next time.  I have no problem with that.

2.  If the error bars are larger and hardware is new, then make sure ISS is on the other side of the planet when the Orbcomms cross it's orbit.  No one's planning a fly by and LEO isn't a small place.

More naivety

1.  There is more than plug and crunch.  The issue is finding the numbers to plug.

2.  then Dragon can't get to the ISS. 

[Antares]

Norm38, you know nothing about Space Station operations.  Only you think it should be routine (and actually, compared to a lot of other issues it is).  There is a minimum amount of time to analyze and execute a debris avoidance maneuver.  This is why Station usually raises the orbit to get out of the way.  There are rare events where debris and/or its orbit is discovered too late to get out of the way, and the crew has to shelter in the Soyuz.  When a body is launched or does an in-orbit maneuver, it is in a new orbit that, for collision avoidance, must be determined AFTERWARDS by navigation or radar solutions not some a priori analytical prediction.  However, that analytical prediction can be used to estimate statistically whether a conjunction will occur or not.  As with most predictions and risk estimates in many, many industries and applications, NASA requires 3 sigma confidence for any mission success estimates including collisions.

It would be tremendously stupid and horrible PR if NASA could have predicted a problem before launch and yet the crew would have to shelter in the Soyuz or worse.  Stop waving your hands and wishing it were different.  This is reality.  This is real risk management.  There are pros here at NSF.  You won't win an argument with them without having a good grasp of both of those things.

[baldusi]

I thought the F9 US would make a second (or third) burn and send the satellites to a 350x750 52deg orbit. I'm assuming that means a slight orbit change. Then the satellites themselves would make a circularization burn. So the orbital planes would not be quite the same. I don't know if the 52 degrees orbital parameter was a rounding of the ISS 51.6, though.

[Antares]

What if the burn is off-nominal?  Heck, what's nominal given that SpaceX decided not to do vacuum tests of the engine on the ground?  An MVac, IIRC, has burned in space 4 times.  Is that enough to characterize shutdown transients which on any launcher or satellite can make kilometers of difference in final orbits?  Statistically, no.  (Even Elon indicated that when he suggested in front of the A-Comm at least 12 F9 flights before crew.)  Statistical significance at least in the space game starts at a higher number.  In other games it starts at a MUCH higher number.  This is a $100B asset with large international stakes included in that value.  Domestic political stakeholders make huge deals out of mistakes.  Risk management is rightfully conservative.

[ugordan]

An MVac, IIRC, has burned in space 4 times.

Well, 3 actual burns in 4 attempts.

Is that enough to characterize shutdown transients which on any launcher or satellite can make kilometers of difference in final orbits? 

As witnessed by the apparently low perigee of the C1 injected orbit (288 km vs presumed 300 km target).