-
#20
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 04 Apr, 2013 05:56
-
How does anik find out about that?
Sometimes from his own sources, sometimes from L2 sources, but this one comes directly from
the public NASA launch schedule.
-
#21
by
Occupymars
on 23 Apr, 2013 20:19
-
William H. Gerstenmaier: "The next space station mission will carry an externally mounted optical communication package and an earth viewing high definition camera also mounted on the outside of ISS." Not sure if this is news?
-
#22
by
mlindner
on 23 Apr, 2013 20:26
-
William H. Gerstenmaier: "The next space station mission will carry an externally mounted optical communication package and an earth viewing high definition camera also mounted on the outside of ISS." Not sure if this is news?
I believe the second item is referencing HDEV?
-
#23
by
Space Pete
on 23 Apr, 2013 20:37
-
William H. Gerstenmaier: "The next space station mission will carry an externally mounted optical communication package and an earth viewing high definition camera also mounted on the outside of ISS." Not sure if this is news?
The "optical communication package" refers to OPALS (Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science), and the "earth viewing high definition camera" refers to HDEV (High Definition Earth Viewing) - both are external payloads on SpX-3.
-
#24
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Apr, 2013 21:10
-
-
#25
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 23 Apr, 2013 21:28
-
William H. Gerstenmaier: "The next space station mission will carry an externally mounted optical communication package and an earth viewing high definition camera also mounted on the outside of ISS." Not sure if this is news?
The "optical communication package" refers to OPALS (Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science), and the "earth viewing high definition camera" refers to HDEV (High Definition Earth Viewing) - both are external payloads on SpX-3.
So, if nothing else, Dragon is enabling expanded useful utilisation of the ISS. Something worth remembering.
-
#26
by
Antares
on 24 Apr, 2013 03:28
-
Station management is doing a great job keeping everyone focused on utilization and science and results. It was about building for so long (and engineers like to build more than they like to do science) that setting the new tone and constantly harping on it is crucial and effective and rather refreshing. Launches and RPOC and entries (and building the new vehicles to do those things) cannot be seen as ends in themselves.
-
#27
by
daver
on 16 May, 2013 02:58
-
-
#28
by
woods170
on 19 Jun, 2013 10:20
-
As per http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html, the launch date is December 9, 2013.
OK, so Jim is going to be right. No more SpaceX launches to the ISS in 2013. We've seen two slips now within the space of one month. CRS-3 is speedily headed for a launch somewhere in 2014.
-
#29
by
Prober
on 19 Jun, 2013 15:37
-
OK, so Jim is going to be right. No more SpaceX launches to the ISS in 2013. We've seen two slips now within the space of one month. CRS-3 is speedily headed for a launch somewhere in 2014.
Agreed. 
Wonder if the OMB is going to look now at the SpaceX contract and say they are over funding it, just like they did with Orbital?
The SpaceX contract is an interesting read.
-
#30
by
JBF
on 19 Jun, 2013 15:44
-
OK, so Jim is going to be right. No more SpaceX launches to the ISS in 2013. We've seen two slips now within the space of one month. CRS-3 is speedily headed for a launch somewhere in 2014.
Agreed.
Wonder if the OMB is going to look now at the SpaceX contract and say they are over funding it, just like they did with Orbital?
The SpaceX contract is an interesting read.
No because SpaceX is actually delivering cargo. Orbital has yet to do so.
-
#31
by
Lee Jay
on 19 Jun, 2013 16:46
-
No because SpaceX is actually delivering cargo. Orbital has yet to do so.
Very little, though. The total delivered cargo for both flights is around 2/3 of what is delivered in one Progress flight.
-
#32
by
Robotbeat
on 19 Jun, 2013 17:24
-
As per http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html, the launch date is December 9, 2013.
OK, so Jim is going to be right. No more SpaceX launches to the ISS in 2013. We've seen two slips now within the space of one month. CRS-3 is speedily headed for a launch somewhere in 2014.
Jim said (lately) no more SpaceX launches at all in 2013 (I'm not sure what he voted for the earlier poll). He still has a chance of being wrong, but I wouldn't bet much on it. I voted for 3 total (i.e. 2 more) launches in 2013, the consensus was 4. I think Jim has a better chance of being right than I do, but I think one more launch attempt in 2013 is most likely (based on nothing in particular).
-
#33
by
Lee Jay
on 19 Jun, 2013 19:59
-
Very little, though. The total delivered cargo for both flights is around 2/3 of what is delivered in one Progress flight.
CRS-1 delivered 905kg of dry cargo
CRS-2 delivered 677kg of dry cargo
Progress M-18M delivered 1,360 kg of dry cargo
So comparing apples to apples Dragon delivered almost half as much per flight,...
Apples to apples? You're basically saying that propellant, water and gasses are not real cargo. They are. So add another roughly 800kg to M-19M's cargo delivery.
Dragon has returned some good downmass, but F9 1.0 was severely cramping the upmass delivery.
-
#34
by
Sesquipedalian
on 19 Jun, 2013 22:43
-
I thought the full upmass capability was not being used because Dragon was volume-limited?
-
#35
by
manboy
on 20 Jun, 2013 00:29
-
I thought the full upmass capability was not being used because Dragon was volume-limited?
The Falcon 9 v1.0 was most likely under performing.
-
#36
by
Sesquipedalian
on 20 Jun, 2013 03:37
-
Great link, thanks.
So then, to restate, the limiting factor is
not volume, because the next flight will use the same capsule but a more powerful rocket, and will deliver more cargo.
-
#37
by
ChrisWilson68
on 20 Jun, 2013 04:02
-
Great link, thanks. :)
So then, to restate, the limiting factor is not volume, because the next flight will use the same capsule but a more powerful rocket, and will deliver more cargo.
I think whether it's volume or mass limited depends on the specific cargo NASA is trying to send up. Some missions may be volume limited while others will be mass limited.
-
#38
by
PreferToLurk
on 20 Jun, 2013 04:15
-
Great link, thanks.
So then, to restate, the limiting factor is not volume, because the next flight will use the same capsule but a more powerful rocket, and will deliver more cargo.
I think whether it's volume or mass limited depends on the specific cargo NASA is trying to send up. Some missions may be volume limited while others will be mass limited.
Right. And if I had to guess, I would bet that NASA knew exactly what their mass and volume limitations were, and probably picked a mix of stuff to maximize both values. If you don't have a ton of mass to work with (until the promised upgrade) and you have some bulky cargo, you send the bulky stuff first. Which would likely make the statement that a mission was volume limited technically true, but only because they carefully chose what to send.
-
#39
by
ChrisWilson68
on 20 Jun, 2013 04:33
-
Great link, thanks. :)
So then, to restate, the limiting factor is not volume, because the next flight will use the same capsule but a more powerful rocket, and will deliver more cargo.
I think whether it's volume or mass limited depends on the specific cargo NASA is trying to send up. Some missions may be volume limited while others will be mass limited.
Right. And if I had to guess, I would bet that NASA knew exactly what their mass and volume limitations were, and probably picked a mix of stuff to maximize both values. If you don't have a ton of mass to work with (until the promised upgrade) and you have some bulky cargo, you send the bulky stuff first. Which would likely make the statement that a mission was volume limited technically true, but only because they carefully chose what to send.
Yes, I think it's very likely that's the case. NASA thinks long and hard about every item it chooses to send to the ISS, and they certainly knew exactly what the mass and volume limits were.
Also, NASA has Japanese and European vehicles sending cargo to the station now, so it would be easy to put more of the denser cargo on those vehicles and more of the less dense cargo on Dragon. Later, the Japanese and European cargo carriers will be phased out and the denser cargos will have to go on Dragon or Cygnus.
One final factor is that Ariane 5/ATV has a lot more of a track record than Falcon 9/Dragon, so NASA might want to put more valuable cargo either on the ATV or on later Dragon missions, to reduce risk.
