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

[Lobo]

I am going to say this (and probably take flak for it).


In my opinon, given the progress we have been shown here, and given that of all commercial providers Spacex has been the first to reach ISS with its own vehicle, it would be a travesty for Spacex not to be selected as the CRS provider in the event we are forced to down-select to one provider.



Its my sincere hope however that we are not forced to down-select to one provider. As that in and of itself would be bad and quite unfair. Heres to hoping.

Agreed.  I think SpaceX made a GREAT and POWERFUL case for themselves in the last few days.
It will be darn hard to eliminate a spaceship from the crew competition that essentially could take up a crew on it's next launch (although without an LAS, but as I said, Gemini didn't have one either).  The spaceship itself will be basically proven space worthy, and capable of carrying pressuized payload to the ISS and return it safely to earth. 
The Liberty Capsule, CST-100 capsule, and Dreamchaser plane are all a long way off from their first test flight, much less test docking with the ISS. Liberty will need to demonstrate it's LV as well (although CST-100 and Dreamchaser will be using a proven LV). 

It will be hard to overlook that and downselect them.  They have a fair amount of good press rolling right now too.  There might be some tough questions asked if they are not selected, if NASA can't point to something very specfically as to why not.  I think it's pretty safe to say they'll be competative price-wise with any other contender (especially since they can offer price sharing with COTS Dragon and F9), and they'll have demonstrated more actual track record and capability by the time the other guys are even test launching.  So I can't imagine there'd be an good reason for NASA to point to as a reason they weren't selected.  And that will make it tough for them to -not- select them I think (hope).

[rdale]

It's not related to SpaceX at all. Details in the ISS section.

[FinalFrontier]

I am going to say this (and probably take flak for it).


In my opinon, given the progress we have been shown here, and given that of all commercial providers Spacex has been the first to reach ISS with its own vehicle, it would be a travesty for Spacex not to be selected as the CRS provider in the event we are forced to down-select to one provider.



Its my sincere hope however that we are not forced to down-select to one provider. As that in and of itself would be bad and quite unfair. Heres to hoping.

Agreed.  I think SpaceX made a GREAT and POWERFUL case for themselves in the last few days.
It will be darn hard to eliminate a spaceship from the crew competition that essentially could take up a crew on it's next launch (although without an LAS, but as I said, Gemini didn't have one either).  The spaceship itself will be basically proven space worthy, and capable of carrying pressuized payload to the ISS and return it safely to earth. 
The Liberty Capsule, CST-100 capsule, and Dreamchaser plane are all a long way off from their first test flight, much less test docking with the ISS. Liberty will need to demonstrate it's LV as well (although CST-100 and Dreamchaser will be using a proven LV). 

It will be hard to overlook that and downselect them.  They have a fair amount of good press rolling right now too.  There might be some tough questions asked if they are not selected, if NASA can't point to something very specfically as to why not.  I think it's pretty safe to say they'll be competative price-wise with any other contender (especially since they can offer price sharing with COTS Dragon and F9), and they'll have demonstrated more actual track record and capability by the time the other guys are even test launching.  So I can't imagine there'd be an good reason for NASA to point to as a reason they weren't selected.  And that will make it tough for them to -not- select them I think (hope).

I have said it before and I will say it again: Politics trumps everything.

Even with this success I can tell you there are people on the hill who in fact, would have been happier had this failed today, and who do not want to see any changes from the old cost plus style status quo. Some of these folks have alot of power in this matter, and I have no doubt they will do anything to try and prevent SpaceX from getting that contract IF it becomes an issue of down-selecting to one company, especially in an election year. Its the unfortunate truth of the way things work on the hill these days. I can also tell you that sadly, there are some folks on the right side of the aisle that think we should not be flying at all, or that it should be pure NASA circa apollo style programs, with nothing else. And most of them are running for office this cycle and quite a few would be new if elected (eg first time not previous incumbents running for re-elect).


Also, your thinking of CRS not cots, this is the last "cots" flight. CRS is the operational missions cots was just the test missions.

[Moe Grills]

Common, everybody!
It's time to get into Elon Musk's head.
Yes, he's delighted with this COTS mission achieving its goals,
splashdown to come.
(He knows SpaceX has the proven ability).

But Elon Musk is more interested in the future beyond LEO.
Sure, you and I are looking forward to a crewed LEO Dragon.
This COTS mission, and the previous mission, show SpaceX
has the ability and the means.
But where does Elon want to take SpaceX in 20 years time after crewed LEO Dragons begin orbiting the Earth, MAYBE in five years or less?
The Moon?
NEO asteroids?
Phobos?

Here's the scenario (a time leap): It's the year 2017. Crewed Dragons are finally berthing to the ISS, maybe carrying a space tourist or two among the seven crew arriving at the aging station per mission.
Elon Musk's Falcon Heavy FINALLY achieves a successful launch carrying
a 50 ton boilerplate payload into LEO that year.
  Elon Musk has had to DOUBLE the size of his workforce between 2012-2017. TRIPLE the size of his production and test facilities between 2012-2017.
To reduce costs, he has had to outsource much of the work to China.
And he STILL finds SPACEX confined to LEO.
Where does he go next?
He make plans for an unmanned Red Dragon to land on Mars between 2018-2022.
But he finds that projected costs for a crewed mission (4 people) to
do a simple unambitous Mars orbital mission (with an option to land on Phobos) within ten years climbing into the tens of billions of dollars.
Who would have thought that the need for worldwide tracking facilities,
orbital rendezvous assembly, producing three Falcon Heavy boosters,
three 50 ton modules, testing and production facilities for a large-scale
VASIMR, and the need for the N word (Nuclear), would become so expensive?

   Elon Musk asks his implanted microcomputer that summer of 2017
to bring up archived files from nasaspaceflight.com forum dating back to 2012 (he lurked incognito on the forum back then) and has a good laugh
at some of the posts.
 
 

[jcm]

I am going to say this (and probably take flak for it).

In my opinon, given the progress we have been shown here, and given that of all commercial providers Spacex has been the first to reach ISS with its own vehicle, it would be a travesty for Spacex not to be selected as the CRS provider in the event we are forced to down-select to one provider.

Its my sincere hope however that we are not forced to down-select to one provider. As that in and of itself would be bad and quite unfair. Heres to hoping.

I wouldn't say "travesty".  I would only say that SpaceX clearly have a leg up on the competition.  Everyone else is talking about building and flying a spacecraft.

 - Ed Kyle

Hence the reason why I said that. How fair would it be to deny the guys who are already flying the opportunity, in favor of someone who does not even have a working vehicle yet.

Anyway I digress, this will be a debate for the discussion threads not the update thread, so i'll leave it at that for now.

Well, to be fair to Orbital, I gather the delays at Wallops are NASA's fault rather than theirs. So you have to compare on a level playing field.
A few months either way doesn't impress me..
 I could believe that if Cygnus is optimized for the cargo mission, without compromises that SpaceX may have added to Dragon to let it grow up to be a Mars spaceship someday, then it's not ridiculous that it could have advantages - although I don't know if there are any offhand.
 What is true is that SpaceX have done a much better job of presenting their project as not just 'Commercial cargo delivery to ISS' but the crusade to human colonization of space - although we know that Orbital does have its own visionaries like Antonio.

If I am a govt official deciding the CRS contract, I might feel a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to discount coolness and focus on responsiveness to the contract call - and on those grounds getting there a little earlier won't be decisive.

So, absolutely, mega-congrats to Elon and his team on an excellent and impressive job, and on their true-believer enthusiasm. But let Orbital show their chops before final judgement.

I really hope we get both of them - that's a much more robust infrastructure.

[spacejulien]

[...] we literally -could- now send crews back up on Dragon right away if we wanted to/had to.
Yea, I know there's no LAS system yet, but there wasn't for GEmini or for STS, and we flew both of those.  So we have chosen to fly without them in the past.
Not saying we want to necessarily, but we now -can- if we really wanted to or needed to. [...]

1) Gemini had ejection seats for first flight phases and other style abort scenarios for the remainder of the trajectory. It's not that they flew "without a plan B".
2) The absence of any sort of rescue system was what killed the Shuttle program after two full crew losses, it has killed more astronauts than all other systems (american and russian) together. We should learn from those mistakes.
3) It's a whole other story between transporting passive cargo to orbit or humans that need ECLSS, change the power needs and thermal balance of the spacecraft and need a whole lot of consumables.

So I'm quite baffled by your statement...

[Lobo]

[...] we literally -could- now send crews back up on Dragon right away if we wanted to/had to.
Yea, I know there's no LAS system yet, but there wasn't for GEmini or for STS, and we flew both of those.  So we have chosen to fly without them in the past.
Not saying we want to necessarily, but we now -can- if we really wanted to or needed to. [...]

1) Gemini had ejection seats for first flight phases and other style abort scenarios for the remainder of the trajectory. It's not that they flew "without a plan B".
2) The absence of any sort of rescue system was what killed the Shuttle program after two full crew losses, it has killed more astronauts than all other systems (american and russian) together. We should learn from those mistakes.
3) It's a whole other story between transporting passive cargo to orbit or humans that need ECLSS, change the power needs and thermal balance of the spacecraft and need a whole lot of consumables.

So I'm quite baffled by your statement...

Don't be baffled, my statement was quite clear.  I wasn't advocating that we start putting crews on the next Dragon launch without an LAS (although we have before), just saying it feels good to have a US spaceship flying again that could take a crew if it had to.  (purely speaking hypotheically, not practically)  Gives me warm fuzzies.
I have no idea why you are so baffled?  It should give everyone warm fuzzies...

[Antares]

So was there something Wrong with the LIDAR?

There was one LIDAR not working and the one that was picked up reflections off the JEM external palette.  SpaceX had to mask them.

[Antares]

What's the mission life of ISS supposed to be? If the COTS/CRS/CCDEV programs are successful, could they conceivably extend the lifespan of the ISS?

ISS life is limited by the statistics of MMOD and its designed shielding, which I really don't think makes any sense.  It either gets taken out by a big chunk of MMOD in real life or it doesn't.  Statistics don't matter.  It was designed to statistically survive 30 years of MMOD.

[Dave G]

I have said it before and I will say it again: Politics trumps everything.

Big money trumps politics.  Boeing brought in $69 Billion last year.  Lockheed Martin brought in $47 Billion.

[RDoc]

There was one LIDAR not working and the one that was picked up reflections off the JEM external palette.  SpaceX had to mask them.

I thought that was the same one and they reconfigured it to avoid the JEM. Was the other not working at all?

[FinalFrontier]

I have said it before and I will say it again: Politics trumps everything.

Big money trumps politics.  Boeing brought in $69 Billion last year.  Lockheed Martin brought in $47 Billion.

Lobbying is the same thing as politics in my mind. You pay people to vote the way you want them to.

When I refer to "politics trumping everything" I am including lobbying (IE big money).

I am relatively sure we are on the same page in our line of thought here.

[FinalFrontier]

I am going to say this (and probably take flak for it).

In my opinon, given the progress we have been shown here, and given that of all commercial providers Spacex has been the first to reach ISS with its own vehicle, it would be a travesty for Spacex not to be selected as the CRS provider in the event we are forced to down-select to one provider.

Its my sincere hope however that we are not forced to down-select to one provider. As that in and of itself would be bad and quite unfair. Heres to hoping.

I wouldn't say "travesty".  I would only say that SpaceX clearly have a leg up on the competition.  Everyone else is talking about building and flying a spacecraft.

 - Ed Kyle

Hence the reason why I said that. How fair would it be to deny the guys who are already flying the opportunity, in favor of someone who does not even have a working vehicle yet.

Anyway I digress, this will be a debate for the discussion threads not the update thread, so i'll leave it at that for now.

Well, to be fair to Orbital, I gather the delays at Wallops are NASA's fault rather than theirs. So you have to compare on a level playing field.
A few months either way doesn't impress me..
 I could believe that if Cygnus is optimized for the cargo mission, without compromises that SpaceX may have added to Dragon to let it grow up to be a Mars spaceship someday, then it's not ridiculous that it could have advantages - although I don't know if there are any offhand.
 What is true is that SpaceX have done a much better job of presenting their project as not just 'Commercial cargo delivery to ISS' but the crusade to human colonization of space - although we know that Orbital does have its own visionaries like Antonio.

If I am a govt official deciding the CRS contract, I might feel a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to discount coolness and focus on responsiveness to the contract call - and on those grounds getting there a little earlier won't be decisive.

So, absolutely, mega-congrats to Elon and his team on an excellent and impressive job, and on their true-believer enthusiasm. But let Orbital show their chops before final judgement.

I really hope we get both of them - that's a much more robust infrastructure.

Correct.

But I was not necessarily referring to orbital when referring to the politics. I think they would also get the short end of the stick.


What I am worried about is a contract being given to Boeing or ULA on a cost plus basis without even a blink being given on the hill. That seems much more probable.

And I have nothing against Boeing/ Lockheed/ ULA, but the fact is its not a cst 100 up there. If it was to come down to one provider the people who are the "most" qualified at this time are  spacex, although that may change in years to come.

I really don't want to see politics put us back in a cxp style situation again.

[asmi]

Don't be baffled, my statement was quite clear.  I wasn't advocating that we start putting crews on the next Dragon launch without an LAS (although we have before), just saying it feels good to have a US spaceship flying again that could take a crew if it had to.  (purely speaking hypotheically, not practically)  Gives me warm fuzzies.
I have no idea why you are so baffled?  It should give everyone warm fuzzies...

I think you're taking it waaaay too far. The reality is that US does NOT have a manned spacecraft and won't have it for quite a while. The reality is that Dragon flew 1.5 times and had quite a set of issues, but even if there would be no issues, I still wouldn't call it "flight-worthy" until in flies at least 10 times without a hitch. The history tells us not to get fooled by first success as both US and USSR/Russia had cases when vehicles workes without a hitch first few times, and then disasters came...

So even if NASA would be forced to urgently bring US astronauts back due to both Souyzes destroyed, the NASA execs will fly to Russia begging RSA for help, and none of them would ever consider using Dragon for evacuation...

[Lar]

The reality is that Dragon flew 1.5 times and had quite a set of issues, but even if there would be no issues, I still wouldn't call it "flight-worthy" until in flies at least 10 times without a hitch.

I don't think flying humans in Dragon at this point in time is at all prudent.

However I would be interested in a recap of the "quite a set of issues" you refer to... other than LIDAR this mission, I wasn't aware of any other major issues. This mission is not done yet, of course.

[Antares]

1) The reality is that Dragon flew 1.5 times and had quite a set of issues,

2) but even if there would be no issues, I still wouldn't call it "flight-worthy" until in flies at least 10 times without a hitch. The history tells us not to get fooled by first success as both US and USSR/Russia had cases when vehicles workes without a hitch first few times, and then disasters came...

1) Wow.  The issues don't seem to be that big.

2) There are a lot of professional space managers who would disagree.  The risks can be managed.

[robertross]

1) The reality is that Dragon flew 1.5 times and had quite a set of issues,

2) but even if there would be no issues, I still wouldn't call it "flight-worthy" until in flies at least 10 times without a hitch. The history tells us not to get fooled by first success as both US and USSR/Russia had cases when vehicles workes without a hitch first few times, and then disasters came...

1) Wow.  The issues don't seem to be that big.

2) There are a lot of professional space managers who would disagree.  The risks can be managed.

And I bet you would have people lining up to take that risk for a flight on a Dragon.

I would propose that the one beneficial thing of this whole day is that it has been so widely publicized that it can only help & bring exposure to the benefits of spaceflight, and perhaps provide a renewed interest for children who may one day join the likes of NASA, SpaceX, ULA, Orbital, and so on.

It was a good day for spaceflight

edit to add: and a great day for this NSF site with the count at 2200 on today

[Lurker Steve]

I am going to say this (and probably take flak for it).

In my opinon, given the progress we have been shown here, and given that of all commercial providers Spacex has been the first to reach ISS with its own vehicle, it would be a travesty for Spacex not to be selected as the CRS provider in the event we are forced to down-select to one provider.

Its my sincere hope however that we are not forced to down-select to one provider. As that in and of itself would be bad and quite unfair. Heres to hoping.

I wouldn't say "travesty".  I would only say that SpaceX clearly have a leg up on the competition.  Everyone else is talking about building and flying a spacecraft.

 - Ed Kyle

Hence the reason why I said that. How fair would it be to deny the guys who are already flying the opportunity, in favor of someone who does not even have a working vehicle yet.

Anyway I digress, this will be a debate for the discussion threads not the update thread, so i'll leave it at that for now.

Well, to be fair to Orbital, I gather the delays at Wallops are NASA's fault rather than theirs. So you have to compare on a level playing field.
A few months either way doesn't impress me..
 I could believe that if Cygnus is optimized for the cargo mission, without compromises that SpaceX may have added to Dragon to let it grow up to be a Mars spaceship someday, then it's not ridiculous that it could have advantages - although I don't know if there are any offhand.
 What is true is that SpaceX have done a much better job of presenting their project as not just 'Commercial cargo delivery to ISS' but the crusade to human colonization of space - although we know that Orbital does have its own visionaries like Antonio.

If I am a govt official deciding the CRS contract, I might feel a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to discount coolness and focus on responsiveness to the contract call - and on those grounds getting there a little earlier won't be decisive.

So, absolutely, mega-congrats to Elon and his team on an excellent and impressive job, and on their true-believer enthusiasm. But let Orbital show their chops before final judgement.

I really hope we get both of them - that's a much more robust infrastructure.

Correct.

But I was not necessarily referring to orbital when referring to the politics. I think they would also get the short end of the stick.


What I am worried about is a contract being given to Boeing or ULA on a cost plus basis without even a blink being given on the hill. That seems much more probable.

And I have nothing against Boeing/ Lockheed/ ULA, but the fact is its not a cst 100 up there. If it was to come down to one provider the people who are the "most" qualified at this time are  spacex, although that may change in years to come.

I really don't want to see politics put us back in a cxp style situation again.

Commerical Crew will not be riding in the current version of Dragon, and that future Dragon will not be launched on the same F9 as this one was. The Dragon capsule that will eventually carry crew to the ISS won't be grabbed by the SSRMS either, so there is a whole new set of GNC software challenges with the approach to the station.

Let's just be glad that they are ready for the CRS contract, and we will see which companies are ready for crew services in 2015.

[sanman]

Commerical Crew will not be riding in the current version of Dragon, and that future Dragon will not be launched on the same F9 as this one was. The Dragon capsule that will eventually carry crew to the ISS won't be grabbed by the SSRMS either, so there is a whole new set of GNC software challenges with the approach to the station.

Let's just be glad that they are ready for the CRS contract, and we will see which companies are ready for crew services in 2015.

How will the manned Dragon dock with ISS? The same way that Shuttle, Progress and ATV did?

[peter-b]

How will the manned Dragon dock with ISS? The same way that Shuttle, Progress and ATV did?

If I remember correctly, it will, using iLIDS/NDS (assuming an adapter gets launched at some point).

I'm still a little surprised/bemused that a docking system with a 127cm passageway (matching CBM) hasn't been developed, but there we go.