SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon COTS Demo (C2+) GENERAL DISCUSSION

[psloss]

Yep. This is the big one for American spaceflight this year, IMO.

If Cygnus flies its demo mission this year that would be another big-sized one.

[Chris Bergin]

Chris,

I realize that this isn't directly NSF related, but do you know if Max-Q Entertainment has any of those passes?

Very much related, as MaxQ are tied at the hip with us! Yeah, we'll have people there. I think we've got five people involved in Discovery's upcoming trip first, then it's Dragon's launch.

[e of pi]

Very much related, as MaxQ are tied at the hip with us! Yeah, we'll have people there. I think we've got five people involved in Discovery's upcoming trip first, then it's Dragon's launch.

I'm glad to hear that. I know SpaceX doesn't seem to need a lot of help making slick video highlight reels, but...well, I'd like to see this flight well-documented, however it goes but particularly if it works.

[zerm]

I'm told there's 385 press credentials issued for the SpaceX launch. Wipes the floor with ELV, but not close to Shuttle.

I'm one of those 385. I hope that all goes well, but temper all of my good wishes with the fact that this IS spaceflight and it ain't easy. Additionally, Mr. Musk has promoted and delayed himself into an interesting little corner. The term "Failure id not an option" really applies to this launch. If they suffer any major malfunction at any point, the critics of "Commercial" and especially "Commercial Crew" will come out of the woodwork looking for blood. Many in the Congress have seen enough talk, promotion and computer animation and now are spring loaded to the "success or else" position.

If SpaceX has a great flight all around- it will be the best thing for the US manned space program. Yet, this is just the third flight of a new launch vehicle and only the second flight of the Dragon- and spaceflight physics cares not about talk or promisses. This flight will be a true make-it or break-it event. Should be fun to cover.

[Lobo]

I'm told there's 385 press credentials issued for the SpaceX launch. Wipes the floor with ELV, but not close to Shuttle.

I'm one of those 385. I hope that all goes well, but temper all of my good wishes with the fact that this IS spaceflight and it ain't easy. Additionally, Mr. Musk has promoted and delayed himself into an interesting little corner. The term "Failure id not an option" really applies to this launch. If they suffer any major malfunction at any point, the critics of "Commercial" and especially "Commercial Crew" will come out of the woodwork looking for blood. Many in the Congress have seen enough talk, promotion and computer animation and now are spring loaded to the "success or else" position.

If SpaceX has a great flight all around- it will be the best thing for the US manned space program. Yet, this is just the third flight of a new launch vehicle and only the second flight of the Dragon- and spaceflight physics cares not about talk or promisses. This flight will be a true make-it or break-it event. Should be fun to cover.

Agreed.  Space flight isn't easy, granted.  But SpaceX wanted to combine COTS 2 with COTS 3.  Which is more efficient, but make a big step forward in complexity, rather than a more incremental step.  They wanted it, and they got it.  Now it's time to get it done, and clever CGI videos and grand speeches from Musk ain't going to get that bird in the air.  And I hope they suceed...

[Robotbeat]

I disagree with the assertion that this is necessarily a lot more complex than a COTS-2-only mission would be. I mean, the biggest failure points (launch, solar array deployment, failure to maintain control in orbit, reentry, recovery) are essentially the same. They just have the opportunity to berth to ISS and deliver some cargo as well. I mean, there are other requirements, but they seem minor and less risky to me compared to the other ones. After the COTS demo 2 part is finished, you'll have a basically well-proven vehicle up there that's healthy and in control. Having to launching again would just provide more risk of failure. And if this was a COTS demo 2-only flight and there was a problem with initial launch, initial solar array deployment, initial orbital maneuvering, etc, there would probably behave been just as much out-cry. At least with this flight, they will have the chance of a very big success to go along with all the risk of the initial parts of the mission.

Yet another flight that doesn't go to ISS would've been a lot of risk for little return. If this flight succeeds (and it probably will), they will be able to rightly say they've delivered cargo safely to ISS (and back, probably, too), a true return of American spaceflight capability, even if it isn't yet crew. That'll do a lot more to persuade critics than what would look like just a COTS-1 but with solar arrays.

Frankly, we all need a strong success like this right now to get Congressional support for commercial crew.

[Lurker Steve]

I disagree with the assertion that this is necessarily a lot more complex than a COTS-2-only mission would be. I mean, the biggest failure points (launch, solar array deployment, failure to maintain control in orbit, reentry, recovery) are essentially the same. They just have the opportunity to berth to ISS and deliver some cargo as well. I mean, there are other requirements, but they seem minor and less risky to me compared to the other ones. After the COTS demo 2 part is finished, you'll have a basically well-proven vehicle up there that's healthy and in control. Having to launching again would just provide more risk of failure. And if this was a COTS demo 2-only flight and there was a problem with initial launch, initial solar array deployment, initial orbital maneuvering, etc, there would probably behave been just as much out-cry. At least with this flight, they will have the chance of a very big success to go along with all the risk of the initial parts of the mission.

Yet another flight that doesn't go to ISS would've been a lot of risk for little return. If this flight succeeds (and it probably will), they will be able to rightly say they've delivered cargo safely to ISS (and back, probably, too), a true return of American spaceflight capability, even if it isn't yet crew. That'll do a lot more to persuade critics than what would look like just a COTS-1 but with solar arrays.

Frankly, we all need a strong success like this right now to get Congressional support for commercial crew.

Remember that if they want to work their way up the NASA / DoD food chain, and earn the right to compete for higher value missions, they not only need to prove they can launch a vehicle. They need to prove they can do it repeatably.

While flying more missions is expensive, and carries a risk of failure, it also gives you an opportunity for success. Unless they build a continuous record of successful missions, they aren't going to qualify for any of those high-value DOD missions that they are hoping for.

[mr. mark]

Question about solar arrays, When will they deploy after the capsule/trunk separation from the second stage? I think the trunk is the long pole in this flight. It needs to have a clean separation from the second stage as well as Pontoon ejection and solar array deployment.   

[Robotbeat]

Lurker Steve: I tend to agree with you that they need to prove an real operational launch tempo to get the high-margin DoD payloads. But that's kind of off-topic. I don't think COTS-2 would've really helped them get there, though.

[STS Tony]

UPDATE thread for SpaceX's Falcon 9 (Flight 3) - COTS-2 Demo. Based on April 30 launch date L-One Month. This thread will continue until launch day.

Thread 1 (1000 posts, 150,000 reads):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23538.0

Thread 2 (1700 posts, 280,000 reads):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26616.0


Links:
SpaceX Forum Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=45.0 - please use this for general questions, non updates.

SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0

SpaceX News Articles (Recent):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/


Recent COTS2/3 Specific articles:

NASA managers aligning to combine final Dragon COTS test missions:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/05/nasa-aligning-combine-final-dragon-cots-missions/

ISS managers evaluating SpaceX via safety reviews ahead of debut arrival:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/iss-managers-spacex-test-safety-reviews-ahead-debut-arrival/

ISS Managers Conduct Expedition 29 FRR, Prepare Station for Post-Shuttle Ops - by Pete Harding:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/iss-managers-expedition-29-frr-prepare-station-post-shuttle-operations/

ISS partners prepare to welcome SpaceX and Orbital in a busy 2012 - by Pete Harding:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/10/iss-partners-welcome-spacex-orbital-busy-2012/

ISS Community reviews Station Progress, Anomalies, and Upcoming Flights - by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/10/iss-community-reviews-station-progress-anomalies-upcoming-flights/

SpaceX Dragon ISS flight to slip further, pending combined mission approval:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/spacex-dragon-flight-slipping-further-combined-approval/

NASA managers announce February 7 launch date for Dragon ISS mission:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/nasa-february-7-launch-date-dragon-iss-mission/

ISS performs hardware and software upgrades to support inaugural Dragon visit - by Pete Harding:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/01/iss-hardware-software-upgrades-support-inaugural-dragon-visit/

Dragon ISS flight slips – SpaceX determined to return US crewed access to LEO:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/01/dragon-slips-spacex-determined-return-us-crewed-access-leo/

SpaceX team conduct successful Falcon 9 WDR ahead of Dragon’s ISS debut:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/spacex-successful-falcon-9-wdr-dragons-iss-debut/


L2 SpaceX Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=tags&tags=SpaceX

L2 SpaceX Dragon C2/C3 Mission Special (NEW - Exclusively acquired pre-launch and Mission Coverage, Presentations, Graphics, Videos, Updates):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=54.0


This is IMPORTANT and a RULE: This thread needs to remain on specific comments to the thread title - SpaceX COTS 2/3. Derailing is not allowed, we have numerous threads for all required debates, and splinter threads can be created if needed. Be civil at all times.

While people in here are trying to go off topic, the L2 special on this mission is very cool. Even a Shuttle or nothing fan such as myself is getting excited about this now.

[zerm]

Well... as an historian, I see all of these upcoming launches (SpaceX, et.al.) as exciting simply because, no matter what the outcome of each they are landmarks on the road of spaceflight history- no matter what the outcome.

[Prober]

I disagree with the assertion that this is necessarily a lot more complex than a COTS-2-only mission would be. I mean, the biggest failure points (launch, solar array deployment, failure to maintain control in orbit, reentry, recovery) are essentially the same. They just have the opportunity to berth to ISS and deliver some cargo as well. I mean, there are other requirements, but they seem minor and less risky to me compared to the other ones. After the COTS demo 2 part is finished, you'll have a basically well-proven vehicle up there that's healthy and in control.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong !

This is the same kind of thinking that lead to the loss of the Challenger.

Sure many @ NASA still have some rules in the back of their minds from that bad experience. 
 

[Robotbeat]

I disagree with the assertion that this is necessarily a lot more complex than a COTS-2-only mission would be. I mean, the biggest failure points (launch, solar array deployment, failure to maintain control in orbit, reentry, recovery) are essentially the same. They just have the opportunity to berth to ISS and deliver some cargo as well. I mean, there are other requirements, but they seem minor and less risky to me compared to the other ones. After the COTS demo 2 part is finished, you'll have a basically well-proven vehicle up there that's healthy and in control.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong !

This is the same kind of thinking that lead to the loss of the Challenger.

Sure many @ NASA still have some rules in the back of their minds from that bad experience. 
 

Calm down a little. Apparently NASA knows better than you, since they approved the combination. The COTS-3 part (i.e. berthing) is contingent on the success of the COTS-2 part, there is absolutely no skimping on safety, here. It's the same sort of approach that both HTV and ATV took, and that was quite successful and safe.

[Prober]

I disagree with the assertion that this is necessarily a lot more complex than a COTS-2-only mission would be. I mean, the biggest failure points (launch, solar array deployment, failure to maintain control in orbit, reentry, recovery) are essentially the same. They just have the opportunity to berth to ISS and deliver some cargo as well. I mean, there are other requirements, but they seem minor and less risky to me compared to the other ones. After the COTS demo 2 part is finished, you'll have a basically well-proven vehicle up there that's healthy and in control.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong !

This is the same kind of thinking that lead to the loss of the Challenger.

Sure many @ NASA still have some rules in the back of their minds from that bad experience. 
 

Calm down a little. Apparently NASA knows better than you, since they approved the combination. The COTS-3 part (i.e. berthing) is contingent on the success of the COTS-2 part, there is absolutely no skimping on safety, here. It's the same sort of approach that both HTV and ATV took, and that was quite successful and safe.

I am calm.....don't try to distract from the major point that needs to be made.

"After the COTS demo 2 part is finished, you'll have a basically well-proven vehicle up there that's healthy and in control."

Well proven, sorry don't think so.

[douglas100]

Were ATV or HTV "well proven" on their first flights? It's the same situation for Dragon.

[Robotbeat]

I disagree with the assertion that this is necessarily a lot more complex than a COTS-2-only mission would be. I mean, the biggest failure points (launch, solar array deployment, failure to maintain control in orbit, reentry, recovery) are essentially the same. They just have the opportunity to berth to ISS and deliver some cargo as well. I mean, there are other requirements, but they seem minor and less risky to me compared to the other ones. After the COTS demo 2 part is finished, you'll have a basically well-proven vehicle up there that's healthy and in control.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong !

This is the same kind of thinking that lead to the loss of the Challenger.

Sure many @ NASA still have some rules in the back of their minds from that bad experience. 
 

Calm down a little. Apparently NASA knows better than you, since they approved the combination. The COTS-3 part (i.e. berthing) is contingent on the success of the COTS-2 part, there is absolutely no skimping on safety, here. It's the same sort of approach that both HTV and ATV took, and that was quite successful and safe.

I am calm.....don't try to distract from the major point that needs to be made.

"After the COTS demo 2 part is finished, you'll have a basically well-proven vehicle up there that's healthy and in control."

Well proven, sorry don't think so.

Context is everything. The Dragon would be better proven at that point (i.e. after all the COTS 2 tests, fly around, simulated aborts, tests of each redundant navigation and communication system, etc) than a new Dragon spacecraft would be that hadn't gone through all the COTS 2 tests already.

[Robotbeat]

Were ATV or HTV "well proven" on their first flights? It's the same situation for Dragon.

Well, yes they were, after the different simulated aborts and the battery of tests they were subjected to before they were allowed near ISS.

[A_M_Swallow]

I am calm.....don't try to distract from the major point that needs to be made.

"After the COTS demo 2 part is finished, you'll have a basically well-proven vehicle up there that's healthy and in control."

Well proven, sorry don't think so.

The lack of previous in-space testing is why COTS-2 Dragon is only carrying a low value cargo.  Real cargo has to wait for CRS-1 and CRS-1 has to wait for a successful birthing.

[Jim]

Were ATV or HTV "well proven" on their first flights? It's the same situation for Dragon.

No, they were built by well proven organizations

[tigerade]

This argument seems kinda moot.  There is a large new thread in L2 about the procedures from rendezvous, berthing and opening the hatch.  There is a lot of stuff the Dragon has to do before berthing, and I'm assuming that if they slip up on any of that, they won't be going to the station.  So Dragon won't berth until it's proven it can perform all of it's required safety maneuvers.