SpaceX COTS Demo 2/3 Updates (THREAD 2)

[Robotbeat]

I agree with Mr. Mark - since we are getting this close it really doesn't matter - besides is it not fair to say that the schedule delays are probably both sides fault.. its well known that ISS had to have two trained personnel on board and do several h/w and s/w upgrades before any dragon flight... its also from history quite likely that spacex had its own delays... lets call it even and look to a good and successful flight...

+1

[dcporter]

+1 also.  (Hi everyone - new poster, armchair spacex skeptic/enthusiast.)

From reading these forums exhaustively over the last year or so, my impression has been that SpaceX wasn't ready with the software and NASA wasn't ready with people or ISS upgrades (due to the Progress failure).  So if NASA had been ready, SpaceX would have been the cause of the delay, and if SpaceX had gotten its software act together sooner then NASA (slash Russia) would have been the delay.

So let's sit back and enjoy the show. =)

[Space Pete]

At the risk of creating a firestorm: Is the C2/3 schedule being held back by the ISS schedule or is the ISS schedule being held back by the C2/3 schedule? I'm interested in the factual answer, not apologia for either side.

Neither. And both.

If SpaceX had been ready to go earlier, ISS wouldn't. Similarly, if ISS had been ready to go earlier, SpaceX wouldn't. No use trying to use one to shield the other.

Ironically, it's not the "big ticket" items like hardware production or testing that is holding COTS back as one might expect - it's 1s and 0s.

[Ben the Space Brit]

At the risk of creating a firestorm: Is the C2/3 schedule being held back by the ISS schedule or is the ISS schedule being held back by the C2/3 schedule? I'm interested in the factual answer, not apologia for either side.

Neither. And both.

Some posters here have made hay with a 'SpaceX Delay Multiplier'.  I think that this just goes to demonstrate that, in the space biz, everyone has something like that!

Anyway, I read about the WDR - Was the Dragon mounted on the LV during the test or is it still being processed in the HIF?

[ugordan]

Anyway, I read about the WDR - Was the Dragon mounted on the LV during the test or is it still being processed in the HIF?

Which WDR? It's unclear because you're talking in the past and present tense simultaneously.

[Comga]

Anyway, I read about the WDR - Was the Dragon mounted on the LV during the test or is it still being processed in the HIF?

Which WDR? It's unclear because you're talking in the past and present tense simultaneously.

He may mean the WDR noted here which says Spetember 1.  I believe that this was before the Dragon was delivered.  Also, from the photos it doesn't look like the Dragon has been outdoors since delivery.

[Robotbeat]

Anyway, I read about the WDR - Was the Dragon mounted on the LV during the test or is it still being processed in the HIF?

Which WDR? It's unclear because you're talking in the past and present tense simultaneously.

Wet dress rehearsal. And I'm pretty sure that was without Dragon mounted.

[ugordan]

If that's the one he meant, yes, those (there were 2 WDRs) didn't have Dragon anywhere near the vehicle. Note how that pic has the top of the vehicle "cleverly" out of the frame.

[Rocket Guy]

The WDR photo posted above is from last September.

This WDR and firing is slated to occur next week.

[ugordan]

Static fire will not happen next week but a few days before launch. Unless you know something we don't?

[Rocket Guy]

I thought I heard a while back it would be part of this, but I guess I'm wrong.

[Antares]

There is something called critical path.  If one side managed its resources because they knew the other side was in the critical path, and was comfortable enough that slips would not cause them to become the critical path, then one side is blameless.  Not that it matters.  Space is still hard.  Even when each piece is not hard technically, it's hard to integrate disparate pieces.

[darkenfast]

I'm going to take completely wild guess about that WDR a few months ago. They had a rocket and a pad, but the spacecraft wasn't ready yet, so this would have been a good time for the pad workers and launch crews to get more experience, work on procedures and of course, make sure that whatever they did to fix that little spilled-fuel fireball and falling-off launch arm was good to go. Did we ever hear what the cause of the launch arm was?

[Comga]

By the way, this image from Chris' reusable Falcon article gave about the best impression to date of the size of the Solar Panel pontoons.

[Antares]

I wonder if they'll have media in the plant at MCC-X.

[manboy]

By the way, this image from Chris' reusable Falcon article gave about the best impression to date of the size of the Solar Panel pontoons.

It's from an old SpaceX video posted during the summer...

[Comga]

By the way, this image from Chris' reusable Falcon article gave about the best impression to date of the size of the Solar Panel pontoons.

It's from an old SpaceX video posted during the summer...

Yes, we all know where it came from.  It's just the one detail there is informative for the solar panel discussion here.

It's always amusing to watch the evolution of a system from proposal to kick-off, PDR, CDR, to Pre-Ship Review as it gets more and more complex.  Here we have the pure cylinder topped by rounded cone of 2004 as it grows all of the appendages and protrusions of the maturing hardware of 2012.  I am still waiting to get a good view of the tapers on the front of the second stage that appeared in the separation test photo in the August 15 SpaceX update.

[docmordrid]

Hopefully they'll post some beauty shots from different perspectives before the big day.

[Ben the Space Brit]

By the way, this image from Chris' reusable Falcon article gave about the best impression to date of the size of the Solar Panel pontoons.

I'm intregued by the change in the size of the solar array fairings. Were the early renderings simply guesses without reference to what SpaceX's engineers were actually doing (quite possible) or was it that analysis of the spacecraft's requirements led to them needing bigger solar arrays that could no longer be fit inside the sides of the trunk?

[Zed_Noir]

By the way, this image from Chris' reusable Falcon article gave about the best impression to date of the size of the Solar Panel pontoons.

I'm intregued by the change in the size of the solar array fairings. Were the early renderings simply guesses without reference to what SpaceX's engineers were actually doing (quite possible) or was it that analysis of the spacecraft's requirements led to them needing bigger solar arrays that could no longer be fit inside the sides of the trunk?

IMO the current solar array configuration is cheaper than the previous one. The Dragon trunk don't need to have complex 3D geometry and trunk interior arrangement is without the protrusion from housing the solar arrays as previously. Also each solar array only got 5 segments. Guess SpaceX opts for bigger components size, but fewer parts.