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

[Dave G]

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.

1) Yes, this was the first test flight of the full Dragon spacecraft (i.e. with solar panels and full instrumentation).  For a test flight, the issues were definately minor.

2) Yes, for any given spacecraft, after all test flights are complete, there should be some number of normal flights to insure reliability before flying humans.  However, I believe 10 is excessive.  I would say 3-5.

3) "Without a hitch" is a subjective term.  All flights have issues.

[Dave G]

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.

Two very good points.

However, they will be very similar. 

[ChefPat]

Do we have any idea when CRS-1 will fly?

[Robotbeat]

Do we have any idea when CRS-1 will fly?

Best guess is September. Nobody knows for sure, of course.

[douglas100]

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 127mm passageway (matching CBM) hasn't been developed, but there we go.

I believe it is to be launched on an HTV as "external" cargo. I assume you meant 127 cm.

[peter-b]

I believe it is to be launched on an HTV as "external" cargo. I assume you meant 127 cm.

I did, thanks.

[Dave G]

Do we have any idea when CRS-1 will fly?

Best guess is September. Nobody knows for sure, of course.

Right.  NASA said September, assuming SpaceX is ready, and assuming the rest of this COTS flight is successful.

[Jorge]

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.

I'm not surprised. Large-diameter docking systems were studied for Freedom but abandoned when NASA decided to adopt the Russian APAS as a standard.

A large-diameter docking system would not be compatible with any of the existing standards. No one is going to spend a lot of money in this day and age to develop yet another docking standard.

[A_M_Swallow]

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.

I'm not surprised. Large-diameter docking systems were studied for Freedom but abandoned when NASA decided to adopt the Russian APAS as a standard.

A large-diameter docking system would not be compatible with any of the existing standards. No one is going to spend a lot of money in this day and age to develop yet another docking standard.

Sometimes you have to pay to correct your mistakes.  Particularly ones the general public can spot.

[peter-b]

A large-diameter docking system would not be compatible with any of the existing standards. No one is going to spend a lot of money in this day and age to develop yet another docking standard.

What's iLIDS if not that?

[Jorge]

A large-diameter docking system would not be compatible with any of the existing standards. No one is going to spend a lot of money in this day and age to develop yet another docking standard.

What's iLIDS if not that?

The new US standard, replacing APAS altogether (since APAS is Russian proprietary). So there is one docking standard (iLIDS) and one berthing standard (CBM).

[Jorge]

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.

I'm not surprised. Large-diameter docking systems were studied for Freedom but abandoned when NASA decided to adopt the Russian APAS as a standard.

A large-diameter docking system would not be compatible with any of the existing standards. No one is going to spend a lot of money in this day and age to develop yet another docking standard.

Sometimes you have to pay to correct your mistakes.  Particularly ones the general public can spot.

There is already a correction, it's called iLIDS.

[peter-b]

Sometimes you have to pay to correct your mistakes.  Particularly ones the general public can spot.

There is already a correction, it's called iLIDS.

Can't fit an ISPR. iLIDS is just a tarted-up NIH version of APAS. Frankly it doesn't fix anything other than NASA using a Russian standard.

[FinalFrontier]

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...

What issues are you talking about. Aside from one minor issue (lidar problem today) which was resolved with a calibration change dragon has had exactly 0 failures or problems during this mission or cots 1, and ground testing has been relatively flaw free up to present.

Don't know what your talking about here, dragon has basically "no" issues, unless your referring to additional systems required for the manned vehicle (which are already being or have already been built and have simply not yet been integrated and tested on an actual dragon). But those are planned upgrades not "issues".


As for "fly to russia if both soyuz destroyed" that's complete hogwash because if you were ever in a situation where neither soyuz at ISS was usable you could simply cut them loose and launch another one.

Of course if you were in such a situation its not likely the crew would survive whatever took out the soyuz in the first place so thats a non-starter once again.

As for using a dragon for evacuation in an emergency, that has been discussed and its been determined that a cargo dragon cannot be used in this manner due to not enough breathable air to get you back home in time. The manned version will be perfectly capable of functioning as an emergency egress vehicle just as the soyuz do now in the event of debris or other problems.


And no "nasa exec" is going to "fly to Russia and beg" that's ridiculous.


As for "10 flights before flight worthy" now your just being totally ridiculous. Got news for you: STS-1 as well as the first ten shuttle missions were on brand new untested vehicles (far less testing mind you then dragon has gone through so far) and they were MANNED missions.  Apollo had only a few test flights before manned flights began on it, and the same is true of Gemini and Mercury before them.

So in reality all of our manned programs thus far have either limited or in the case of shuttle no test flights before manned missions took place, the manned missions WERE the test flights.

By the time dragon is ready for commercial crew it will have flown a minimum of 5 more times and the manned vehicle will be significantly upgraded compared to the current V 1.0 crs vehicle. Which is more then enough to establish a flight record for manned missions (and is in some cases more than previous NASA programs).


Not sure where your getting this idea of it "not being flight proven unless ten or more missions", that's a straw-man if you consider historical facts. 



And as for "issues" I would really like to know where you and a few of the other posters on this thread are getting that from. There really have been no issues with this spacecraft as yet. The LV's only issues have been launch aborts or wdr static fire aborts, it has had no failures besides that (hesitant to even call those failures as opposed to FC working properly) and the flight one gas gen nozzle tvc failure which was non-critical anyway even in a manned mission.






 

[Jorge]

Sometimes you have to pay to correct your mistakes.  Particularly ones the general public can spot.

There is already a correction, it's called iLIDS.

Can't fit an ISPR. iLIDS is just a tarted-up NIH version of APAS. Frankly it doesn't fix anything other than NASA using a Russian standard.

Use CBM for ISPRs. A docking system large enough to fit a CBM hatch would be extremely heavy due to the need for loads attenuation. CBM doesn't need that since the SSRMS brings the vehicle in with low loads, plus the visiting vehicle gets to carry the light passive side of the interface rather than the heavy active side. Dragon would be a lot heavier if it had to carry an active docking system the size of CBM.

iLIDS is a standard for more than just ISS, it is for BEO. Therefore it must be light, and therefore it must be small. It is considerably lighter than APAS. So it is not just "NIH" (though the desire for Commercial Crew not to have to rely on the Russians for APAS mechanisms is indeed part of what keeps iLIDS going).

Use the right tool for the job. The point is fairly moot anyway; NASA is not going to re-litigate this decision.

[sanman]

Stratfor's eminence grise George Friedman gives commentary on the significance of this historic SpaceX success:

[Lar]

Can someone point me to an explanation of why the dust masks for such a long period of time, if the air samples are good? I take it this is SOP, but why? Also why the delays between coming out and going back in again. Thanks!

[jak Kennedy]

So now the ISS has an extra lifeboat? Perhaps it would also need an Oxygen generator and CO2 scrubber, but in a pinch is there anything stopping this?

[Thunderbird5]

So now the ISS has an extra lifeboat? Perhaps it would also need an Oxygen generator and CO2 scrubber, but in a pinch is there anything stopping this?

This has already been discussed on the forum at great length 

The consensus was definitely 'no'! 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27820.0

[A12]

So now the ISS has an extra lifeboat? Perhaps it would also need an Oxygen generator and CO2 scrubber, but in a pinch is there anything stopping this?

Not (yet) seats there