Author Topic: SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2) (Read 787843 times)

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #680 on:** 12/09/2011 06:12 pm »

Short article on the approval (as opposed to simply updating the previous article):

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/nasa-february-7-launch-date-dragon-iss-mission/

Lee Jay · « **Reply #681 on:** 12/09/2011 06:13 pm »

Sweet! I predict I'll be glued to NSF during this mission!

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #682 on:** 12/09/2011 06:51 pm »

A clarification to the article (notes here)...

I mentioned the reviews, and how it might be like a Shuttle pre-FRR stage at T-8 weeks. To clarify, and thanks to the help sent on this, there will be a NASA level Demo Readiness Review (RR) and an ISS ORR review, similar to that undertaken for Europe's ATV and Japan's HTV.

Example of the HTV NASA Review:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/08/nasa-ready-for-japans-htv-via-flight-readiness-review/

L2 Members can download all the FRR documents from that here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23533.0

Arceus12345 · « **Reply #683 on:** 12/09/2011 09:46 pm »

Is this delay NASA's or SpaceX's fault? If SpaceX keeps missing their launch dates, they are likely to lose commercial launch customers! (something we don't need in this economy....)

pippin · « **Reply #684 on:** 12/09/2011 09:56 pm »

Everybody seems to have agreed that the most convenient thing to do is to put the blame on the Russians...

iamlucky13 · « **Reply #685 on:** 12/10/2011 12:41 am »

I'm getting tired of the ongoing discussion of looking for someone to blame for what arguably isn't even a problem.

Why can't we just accept that developing a new rocket, with an oversight method that hasn't been tried before but still has to keep people safe, is not a simple task either for the manufacturer or for the customer?

Neither SpaceX nor NASA are indicating any real problems with what's taken place. As Chris pointed out, many of the review processes taking place for this first-of-a-kind mission are little different than what the Shuttle went through every time it launched.

Can we please stop looking so hard for intrigues and focus on what this site is best at: digging up and sharing all the detailed information on this project we can get our nerdy little hands on?

mjcrsmith · « **Reply #686 on:** 12/10/2011 01:02 am »

Iamlucky13 gets post of the day award.

rcoppola · « **Reply #687 on:** 12/10/2011 01:10 am »

Quote from: mjcrsmith on 12/10/2011 01:02 am

Iamlucky13 gets post of the day award.

Agreed and thanks for the grounding.

spectre9 · « **Reply #688 on:** 12/10/2011 01:22 am »

It was the Progress failure that delayed everything.

This isn't blaming the Russians for the sake of it. It's true.

Jason1701 · « **Reply #689 on:** 12/10/2011 01:42 am »

Quote from: spectre9 on 12/10/2011 01:22 am

It was the Progress failure that delayed everything.

This isn't blaming the Russians for the sake of it. It's true.

No, iamlucky is right. Progress did not delay SpaceX, they would not have been ready anyway.

hop · « **Reply #690 on:** 12/10/2011 01:54 am »

Quote from: spectre9 on 12/10/2011 01:22 am

It was the Progress failure that delayed everything.

The Progress failure added constraints, but assuming it is the only cause of delay appears unwarranted. Perhaps you have some reliably sourced information to support that assertion ?

IMO, iamlucky13 nailed it:

Quote from: iamlucky13 on 12/10/2011 12:41 am

Can we please stop looking so hard for intrigues and focus on what this site is best at: digging up and sharing all the detailed information on this project we can get our nerdy little hands on?

Here's something: SpaceX have applied for, but not yet been granted their FCC "SPECIAL TEMPORARY AUTHORITY" for radio operations related to the flight.
Application https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=49678&RequestTimeout=1000

If you go to https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/GenericSearchResult.cfm and search for "Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX)" in the "applicant" field, you can see the status, as a well as correspondence related to the application. You can also see their granted license from the first Dragon flight.

Found this today via http://www.uk.amsat.org/2011/12/09/spacex-applies-for-dragon-frequencies/ - although SpaceX actually applied back in October.

spectre9 · « **Reply #691 on:** 12/10/2011 01:57 am »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 12/10/2011 01:42 am

Quote from: spectre9 on 12/10/2011 01:22 am
It was the Progress failure that delayed everything.

This isn't blaming the Russians for the sake of it. It's true.

No, iamlucky is right. Progress did not delay SpaceX, they would not have been ready anyway.

This could be true but astros are still needed on the station and the progress delayed the Soyuz that will take them there.

I'm happy to be hearing February after some reports were saying April.

iamlucky13 · « **Reply #692 on:** 12/10/2011 02:27 am »

Quote from: spectre9 on 12/10/2011 01:22 am

It was the Progress failure that delayed everything.

This isn't blaming the Russians for the sake of it. It's true.

The Soyuz stand down and resulting crew impact are of course related constraints and were well-substantiated and useful additions to the discussion.

But there's been a lot of side-tracking into speculation that really hasn't been useful in my own opinion, and I can only imagine what less frequent followers of this thread must feel trying to read back through all of it and sort fact and informed opinion from speculation and bias.

Now with all that said, here's hoping for success on February 7th or on whichever date after that the Dragon next flies!

I already made my guess a few weeks ago we'd be seeing a March launch, but I don't mind being proven wrong.

Jim · « **Reply #693 on:** 12/10/2011 02:54 am »

Quote from: spectre9 on 12/10/2011 01:22 am

It was the Progress failure that delayed everything.

This isn't blaming the Russians for the sake of it. It's true.

wrong again, more trolling

spectre9 · « **Reply #694 on:** 12/10/2011 03:24 am »

No Jim I was sorta right on that one and what you've done is SNIPED me.

That's worse than trolling.

How about you stop sniping and I'll stop trolling?

Jim · « **Reply #695 on:** 12/10/2011 03:30 am »

Quote from: spectre9 on 12/10/2011 03:24 am

No Jim I was sorta right on that one and what you've done is SNIPED me.

Wrong again, there would still be delays if the Progress launched successfully. Spacex is not ready.

Trolling is worse

caveman · « **Reply #696 on:** 12/10/2011 06:05 am »

Hey I saw this get posted about 4 hours ago. Looks like we might have a Feb 7th launch for Space X.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-oks-feb-launch-private-space-station-trip-182240862.html

sdsds · « **Reply #697 on:** 12/10/2011 06:23 am »

Quote from: ugordan on 12/09/2011 04:49 pm

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/09/2011 04:46 pm
Pending completion of final safety reviews, testing and
verification, NASA also has agreed to allow SpaceX to send its Dragon
spacecraft to rendezvous with the International Space Station (ISS)
in a single flight.

Haven't I heard that already. So, what exactly is different this time round?

Just an observation: unlike previous comments from Gerstenmaier (e.g. in Moscow after the Soyuz launch) this press release makes no mention of consultation with our Russian colleagues.

AnalogMan · « **Reply #698 on:** 12/10/2011 10:01 am »

Quote from: caveman on 12/10/2011 06:05 am

Hey I saw this get posted about 4 hours ago. Looks like we might have a Feb 7th launch for Space X.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-oks-feb-launch-private-space-station-trip-182240862.html

Someone didn't read this thread properly, or the news article published on this site yesterday

docmordrid · « **Reply #699 on:** 12/10/2011 12:24 pm »

Aviation Week article says only one secondary payload, not two

AvWeek....