SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[Prober]

Random thought, could the COTS demo be modified slightly to add enough life support and a few seats, to serve as a lifeboat in order to extend a token crew on the ISS for the time needed to get Soyuz flying again?

interesting idea but don't believe they are that close to being ready.
 
How about this, SpaceX launches regardless.  Can launch those two payloads and work on Cots 2 goals etc.  Do as many Cots 2 or 3 that can be done. 

Cots 3 cannot be accomplished without berthing, that is the goal.  SpaceX is being wise to wait for the crew, no use wasting a spacecraft on an incomplete mission.

I disagree, SpaceX has alot of bugs to work out and prob will find more after another launch.   So the only way to get "experience" is to get some launches done.

Experience is the best promotion.

[robertross]

The most critical loss was a number of Russian laptops loaded with new software (Vers. 8.05).

The bold is mine. So, the software upgrade might be an issue. I always assumed they could upload it. But they stated that it was a critical issue.

That relates to Service Module (SM) vers. 8.05, and is not related to the Dragon berthing.

You are right. According to this article (is it yours?) there's the need to do the X2_R10 and X2_R11 upgrade to the ISS software, and only then the SSRMS MSS 7.1 upgrade to be able to berth the Dragon. Did I got it right?
Since this was part of Expedition 29, I understand that none of this has been performed. If the ISS has to do with a reduced crew until Soyuz TMA-03M docks, I think they will have little time to do the upgrade. Specially, in such a critical time were there's the risk of having to leave the station on remote control.

Yup, that is my article, and you are correct.

And to add to that, there is also a hardware upgrade that plays into the mix for that transition (from Pete's article):

"The first software upgrade is called X2_R10 (the current version of ISS software is X2_R9), and is required to support the addition of new Enhanced Processor and Integrated Communications (EPIC) cards to the station’s three Command & Control (C&C) and two Guidance, Navigation & Control (GNC) Multiplexers/Demultiplexers (MDMs)."

[robertross]

Shotwell: Might have to delay Falcon/Dragon mission to ISS in Nov as the crew trained to grapple Dragon may not be on the ISS in time. Delay is a consequence of the recent Soyuz failure and the time it will take to get it flying again, and rotate ISS crews. #WSBW

Even odds this is Gwynne pawning off SpaceX delays on NASA.  Groan.  It's no different than any other government contractor, space or not.

I didn't realize this type of thing happens with any frequency. (sighs)

[Lars_J]

Shotwell: Might have to delay Falcon/Dragon mission to ISS in Nov as the crew trained to grapple Dragon may not be on the ISS in time. Delay is a consequence of the recent Soyuz failure and the time it will take to get it flying again, and rotate ISS crews. #WSBW

Even odds this is Gwynne pawning off SpaceX delays on NASA.  Groan.  It's no different than any other government contractor, space or not.

I didn't realize this type of thing happens with any frequency. (sighs)

NASA has done it for itself as well. Remember the early days of ISS? They were quite happy to publicly make note about Russian delays in finishing & launching Zevzda, but behind the scenes many US components (like the Lab) were also behind schedule - and would not been ready to launch had Zvezda gone up "on time". So the Russian delays ended up being a convenient cover for the US delays.

[beancounter]

Random thought, could the COTS demo be modified slightly to add enough life support and a few seats, to serve as a lifeboat in order to extend a token crew on the ISS for the time needed to get Soyuz flying again?

interesting idea but don't believe they are that close to being ready.
 
How about this, SpaceX launches regardless.  Can launch those two payloads and work on Cots 2 goals etc.  Do as many Cots 2 or 3 that can be done. 

Cots 3 cannot be accomplished without berthing, that is the goal.  SpaceX is being wise to wait for the crew, no use wasting a spacecraft on an incomplete mission.

I disagree, SpaceX has alot of bugs to work out and prob will find more after another launch.   So the only way to get "experience" is to get some launches done.

Experience is the best promotion.

Didn't know SpaceX had lots of bugs to work out.  Where does this come from or is this purely speculative like so much other stuff here?  Bugs implies problems with things not working as they're designed, not ongoing development and testing which I'm sure SpaceX is still undertaking.

[Comga]

So to sum this up we have 3 different potential delay mechanisms at work:

1) ISS software delays
2) Soyuz failure moving everything to the right
3) SpaceX own development delays

Did I get that right?

Among the SpaceX delays, on an Orbital thread Antares mentioned that SpaceX had failed at some mission simulation, and would have to come back in December.  I have seen no other mention of this.

The ISS software problem is surprising.  Imagine if SpaceX had been on time.  (Yes, I did calculate the SpaceX time dilation factor of 2.4.)  Even with their delays, SpaceX could wind up with several rockets waiting for the right trained astronauts to load and test the right software.  Of course, NASA could prevent this by requiring, even paying for, more tests of Dragon that would delay it getting to the pad.

[david1971]

Among the SpaceX delays, on an Orbital thread Antares mentioned that SpaceX had failed at some mission simulation, and would have to come back in December.  I have seen no other mention of this.

Actually, it was Antonio:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26636.msg803086#msg803086

[Antares]

Among the SpaceX delays, on an Orbital thread Antares mentioned that SpaceX had failed at some mission simulation, and would have to come back in December.  I have seen no other mention of this.

No that was antonioe.  I find it odd that he would have information on such an event.  I don't consider contractors talking about each other to be credible without second-sourcing it.  The amount of false noise that has come out of ATK in the last 5 years about Ares alternatives is pathetic.

[AdamH]

That would set back COTS-2/3 quite a bit, assuming they aren't already postponed by by NASA's SSRMS software issues.

Any confirmation out there or further information?

I had the chance to see a SpaceX presentation the other day at my college. I don't know if this is news but while I was there I asked the manager of mission operations Marco Villa about the current plans for COTS-2/3. He told me that SpaceX was all set and approved by NASA for doing a single combined flight and that they were still planning on launching before 2012 and probably in November.

[mr. mark]

That would be news especially from a missions manager. We will have to see how it pans out. Dragon's preliminary arrival time at the cape is for September 17th. 

[Robotbeat]

Among the SpaceX delays, on an Orbital thread Antares mentioned that SpaceX had failed at some mission simulation, and would have to come back in December.  I have seen no other mention of this.

No that was antonioe.  I find it odd that he would have information on such an event.  I don't consider contractors talking about each other to be credible without second-sourcing it.  The amount of false noise that has come out of ATK in the last 5 years about Ares alternatives is pathetic.

Antonioe is higher class than that.

Still, word about competitors often gets passed around a company, especially if it's negative about the competitor.

[Lars_J]

Here is antonioe's quote: (from http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26636.msg803086#msg803086 )

We are scheduled for JT4 in November.  We don't know what happened with SpaceX's JT4, I believe they had to stop it and will be back in December.

So it is not definitive, he admits it is speculation.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Here is antonioe's quote: (from http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26636.msg803086#msg803086 )

We are scheduled for JT4 in November.  We don't know what happened with SpaceX's JT4, I believe they had to stop it and will be back in December.

So it is not definitive, he admits it is speculation.

(Joint Test 4) JT4 is not really a software test. It is a procedures test that involves running software but also includes ISS on orbit crew participation, basically a “dry run” for the rendezvous and berthing to iron out communications and any procedural problems. The testing was scheduled for early Sept as per the Aug 2 NASA briefing http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/580728main_5%20-%20Suffredini%20NAC%20August%202%202011_508.pdf after Progress 44. NASA could have halted the test and rescheduled it tentatively in Dec after the crisis caused by Progress 44 is over. This movement to the right for SpaceX also means the JT4 for Orbital which also includes ISS on orbit crew participation which was scheduled for Nov will probably move to Jan.

Orbital’s statement was only that SpaceX for some reason in late Aug/early Sept was not able to complete JT4. Duh! ISS crew schedules would have been swept clear of all lower priority tasks. A dry run is definitely a lower priority task for ISS right now. They could have attempted it anyways but ran into some sort of difficulty which may or may not have been a SpaceX responsibility. With crew time in short supply a difficulty with executing the test, which under normal circumstances could possibly have been corrected so the test could complete, would cause a test termination under the new circumstances.

If NASA has really scheduled this “dry run” JT4 until after a full crew compliment is onboard ISS then the COTS 2/3 probably will move into late Dec at the earliest, most likely Jan.

[Lurker Steve]

Here is antonioe's quote: (from http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26636.msg803086#msg803086 )

We are scheduled for JT4 in November.  We don't know what happened with SpaceX's JT4, I believe they had to stop it and will be back in December.

So it is not definitive, he admits it is speculation.

(Joint Test 4) JT4 is not really a software test. It is a procedures test that involves running software but also includes ISS on orbit crew participation, basically a “dry run” for the rendezvous and berthing to iron out communications and any procedural problems. The testing was scheduled for early Sept as per the Aug 2 NASA briefing http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/580728main_5%20-%20Suffredini%20NAC%20August%202%202011_508.pdf after Progress 44. NASA could have halted the test and rescheduled it tentatively in Dec after the crisis caused by Progress 44 is over. This movement to the right for SpaceX also means the JT4 for Orbital which also includes ISS on orbit crew participation which was scheduled for Nov will probably move to Jan.

Orbital’s statement was only that SpaceX for some reason in late Aug/early Sept was not able to complete JT4. Duh! ISS crew schedules would have been swept clear of all lower priority tasks. A dry run is definitely a lower priority task for ISS right now. They could have attempted it anyways but ran into some sort of difficulty which may or may not have been a SpaceX responsibility. With crew time in short supply a difficulty with executing the test, which under normal circumstances could possibly have been corrected so the test could complete, would cause a test termination under the new circumstances.

If NASA has really scheduled this “dry run” JT4 until after a full crew compliment is onboard ISS then the COTS 2/3 probably will move into late Dec at the earliest, most likely Jan.

I assume this "dry run" would have been performed with the actual ISS crew that will be performing the actual rendezvous and berthing operations. Even without the Progress issue, those guys wouldn't have been on orbit yet, would they ?

I thought this was a test using ground simulators. At least that was my initial impression after reading the Orbital thread.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I assume this "dry run" would have been performed with the actual ISS crew that will be performing the actual rendezvous and berthing operations. Even without the Progress issue, those guys wouldn't have been on orbit yet, would they ?

I thought this was a test using ground simulators. At least that was my initial impression after reading the Orbital thread.

If it was to be done with the new crew to arrive in Sept, then yes you would have to do it on the ground which defeats part of the purpose of a Joint Test of an operation where you try to make the dry run as realistic as possible with all the problems such as comminications with the ISS and other operational participants can occur. The test as shown in the breifing referenced ISS not a crew specification.

[MP99]

Didn't know SpaceX had lots of bugs to work out.  Where does this come from or is this purely speculative like so much other stuff here?  Bugs implies problems with things not working as they're designed, not ongoing development and testing which I'm sure SpaceX is still undertaking.

Not stating anything specific about SpaceX, but testing is done to find and eliminate bugs.

If you develop a complex new system and your testing is not finding bugs, then your testing is at fault. All complex systems contain bugs, and that includes mature systems that have been through a lot of testing and in use for years (ref the recent Soyuz launcher failure after decades of operation).

cheers, Martin

[Comga]

Among the SpaceX delays, on an Orbital thread Antares mentioned that SpaceX had failed at some mission simulation, and would have to come back in December.  I have seen no other mention of this.

No that was antonioe.  I find it odd that he would have information on such an event.  I don't consider contractors talking about each other to be credible without second-sourcing it.  The amount of false noise that has come out of ATK in the last 5 years about Ares alternatives is pathetic.

My apologies for misidentifying the source as you, but my thanks to all for the continued discussion.

[MrAnthonyDR]

Didn't know SpaceX had lots of bugs to work out.  Where does this come from or is this purely speculative like so much other stuff here?  Bugs implies problems with things not working as they're designed, not ongoing development and testing which I'm sure SpaceX is still undertaking.

Not stating anything specific about SpaceX, but testing is done to find and eliminate bugs.

If you develop a complex new system and your testing is not finding bugs, then your testing is at fault. All complex systems contain bugs, and that includes mature systems that have been through a lot of testing and in use for years (ref the recent Soyuz launcher failure after decades of operation).

cheers, Martin

Do you think SpaceX updates the public on testing etc on a consistent enough basis? If you check their site, the last post was made in early August. Surely given the situation with the Russian Progress vehicle and production halt, you'd hope that SpaceX would have a view on how it affects them, and would thus update the public?

It just seems like companies like Virgin and SpaceX tend go quiet for months at a time (from a publicity standpoint) then resurface in the news with a seemingly random update.

Given the frustration of the space industry that the public have grown callous to space-flight, surely every effort should be made by companies like SpaceX to re-popularise space-flight through relentless PR?

Anthony

[Ben the Space Brit]

Do you think SpaceX updates the public on testing etc on a consistent enough basis? If you check their site, the last post was made in early August. Surely given the situation with the Russian Progress vehicle and production halt, you'd hope that SpaceX would have a view on how it affects them, and would thus update the public?

It just seems like companies like Virgin and SpaceX tend go quiet for months at a time (from a publicity standpoint) then resurface in the news with a seemingly random update.

I don't think that SpaceX works on the basis of 'tell everyone everything every time' any more than any other public or private space operation.  Understandably, problems are kept confidential and successes are lauded as maintaining confidence is considered the priority.

FWIW, if NASA, 100% public-funded, is reluctant to talk about problems, how much more a part-commercial entity like SpaceX?

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}

Given the frustration of the space industry that the public have grown callous to space-flight, surely every effort should be made by companies like SpaceX to re-popularise space-flight through relentless PR?

No.  Nags get hated.