SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Dragon - CRS-5/SpX-5 -Jan. 10, 2015 - DISCUSSION

[rpapo]

By all appearances, the hardware for CRS-5 is well into the pipeline now, with very little room to move the schedule to the left.  It's not like there's a Falcon 9 handy to swap as seemed to happen back in August.

[kevin-rf]

In the Antares threads it was mentioned that an O2 tank might be swapped out for an N2 tank to replace the one that was just lost.

[Ludus]

I hope they put a couple drone copters on the platform that can take off and provide great shots of the approach and landing.

[rpapo]

Has it occurred to anyone that the CRS-4 partial boostback towards the coast may have had more reasons than simply giving NASA's planes an easier view?  Perhaps they want to be able to station the barge somewhat closer to shore?

[robertross]

In the Antares threads it was mentioned that an O2 tank might be swapped out for an N2 tank to replace the one that was just lost.

Yes, and I believe it was Mike Sufferdini that said they may (have to) move the schedule to the right, perhaps not specifically for the O2/N2 tank swap, but one has to consider the personal items & food selection items for the next ISS crew.

And then there's the science training that just went bye-bye (if they were planning anything around that), and any EVA logistics.

Good thing we have redundancy.

[Kabloona]

Has it occurred to anyone that the CRS-4 partial boostback towards the coast may have had more reasons than simply giving NASA's planes an easier view?  Perhaps they want to be able to station the barge somewhat closer to shore?

Yes, the barge location has been the subject of extensive speculation over here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35244.msg1244576#msg1244576

Based on CRS-4 boostback in westerly direction, some have speculated that the barge might be positioned off North Carolina shore (Cape Fear, etc). It was also speculated that the barge might be of "jack-up" type with legs for shallow water deployment.

[Elmar Moelzer]

It was also speculated that the barge might be of "jack-up" type with legs for shallow water deployment.

I thought that Musk said at the recent MIT event that the barge was going to use its engines to hold position.

[cscott]

Has it occurred to anyone that the CRS-4 partial boostback towards the coast may have had more reasons than simply giving NASA's planes an easier view?  Perhaps they want to be able to station the barge somewhat closer to shore?

Yes, the barge location has been the subject of extensive speculation over here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35244.msg1244576#msg1244576

Based on CRS-4 boostback in westerly direction, some have speculated that the barge might be positioned off North Carolina shore (Cape Fear, etc). It was also speculated that the barge might be of "jack-up" type with legs for shallow water deployment.

Yes, but Elon specifically said, "It's not anchored, because it's out in the Atlantic.", see http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-at-mits-aeroastro-centennial-part-1-of-6-2014-10-24

In the Antares threads it was mentioned that an O2 tank might be swapped out for an N2 tank to replace the one that was just lost.

Note in particular he mentioned that the exact same tanks were used for O2 and N2.  So this is swapping in an item of identical size/shape (although possibly not mass).  That seems to indicate a conservative approach to manifest changes.  It was also stated that there were already supplies on board to last until March.

I think it would be more likely to see CRS-6 moved up, maybe even into January, than any substantial changes to CRS-5.  Depends on how far through manufacturing the CRS-6 Dragon is, I bet.  If I were SpaceX, I'd probably be trying to make a case for NASA to buy a "test flight" of a refurbished Dragon sometime in 2015 to fill the gap without stressing the Dragon manufacturing line.

[Kabloona]

It was also speculated that the barge might be of "jack-up" type with legs for shallow water deployment.

I thought that Musk said at the recent MIT event that the barge was going to use its engines to hold position.

Yes, the jack-up barge speculation was pre-MIT talk, mentioned only to point out here that a wide-ranging discussion of possible barge locations has been going on for some time in that thread...in answer to rpapo's question as to whether barge locations closer to shore had been considered in this forum.

[cdleonard]

If I were SpaceX, I'd probably be trying to make a case for NASA to buy a "test flight" of a refurbished Dragon sometime in 2015 to fill the gap without stressing the Dragon manufacturing line.

That would be awesome. However I'm not sure it's even possible to refurbish the Dragon after it spends several hours in the ocean.

It would make more business sense to ask for more money in order to increase production rate. They could even ask for more than the standard cost of the extra Dragons.

[nimbostratus]

Given the ORB-CRS-3 failure, has there been any noise being made about bringing forward SpX-CRS-5 and reconfiguring its manifest to mitigate any losses?

Each CRS mission is never fully loaded, so Spx-CRS-5 may has the room for the payload of OSC-CRS-3 mission.

[cscott]

If I were SpaceX, I'd probably be trying to make a case for NASA to buy a "test flight" of a refurbished Dragon sometime in 2015 to fill the gap without stressing the Dragon manufacturing line.

That would be awesome. However I'm not sure it's even possible to refurbish the Dragon after it spends several hours in the ocean.

Oh, I'm sure it's *possible*.  Even if all you're doing is stripping some of the expensive parts off the used dragon for a new dragon, there has to be a significant amount of hardware cost you can save.  And Dragon *was* designed to be reused and reflown.

SpaceX has said before that the hard part was *recertifying* the used Dragon to fly to ISS.  This isn't just NASA paperwork, it's agreeing on a set of test/check/refurbish procedures that satisfy both SpaceX (who are concerned with cost and time) and NASA (who are concerned about failure modes which might jeopardize the ISS).  What I was suggesting was an incentive for a sort of middle ground where NASA agrees to a streamlined recertification process for a "one off" flight to answer a pressing need at a low cost to NASA.  This might be a foreign concept to a bureaucracy, however, and thus a nonstarter.  And the need is not actually all that pressing.  And the difference between a "minimal" recertification which only gives confidence that the ISS will not be harmed and a "full" recertification might not be all that large.  And SpaceX would probably prefer to work on a longer-term recertification plan, rather than bodge together a one-off.  Etc, etc, etc.

[Jim]

  If I were SpaceX, I'd probably be trying to make a case for NASA to buy a "test flight" of a refurbished Dragon sometime in 2015 to fill the gap without stressing the Dragon manufacturing line.

Why would NASA or should NASA pay for it?

[Jim]

This might be a foreign concept to a bureaucracy, however, and thus a nonstarter.

It has nothing to do with bureaucracy or organizational dynamics.

This isn't just NASA paperwork,

Define NASA paperwork?  And why doe it have to be called out in addition to " test/check/refurbish procedures "

[Hauerg]

  If I were SpaceX, I'd probably be trying to make a case for NASA to buy a "test flight" of a refurbished Dragon sometime in 2015 to fill the gap without stressing the Dragon manufacturing line.

Why would NASA or should NASA pay for it?

Because this "test flight" would deliver the usual payload to ISS, methinks.

[Tea Party Space Czar]

  If I were SpaceX, I'd probably be trying to make a case for NASA to buy a "test flight" of a refurbished Dragon sometime in 2015 to fill the gap without stressing the Dragon manufacturing line.

Why would NASA or should NASA pay for it?

SpaceX is free to pitch whatever it wants.  NASA, being the customer can say or do whatever NASA pleases.  NASA might negotiate a deal or simply say no.  Saying that NASA should pay for it is silly.   

NASA is assuming a lot of risk right now and Sufferdini and Gerst are fielding a lot of questions right now.  No reason to push right now. 

If it seems like I am playing b oth sides... I am... its a free market for CRS. 

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

[deruch]

Update from the solid surface landings thread:

New FCC application shows where SpaceX is planning to put the barge.

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=62792

Darga updated his hazard map from the CRS-4 launch to also show the position of the boat [for the CRS-5 launch].  It's the blue boat icon.  So it looks like they'll be attempting to boost back about a third the distance to the Cape.

[MattMason]

With a bad week for commercial space ventures behind us and still fresh in memory and investigation, I'm wondering how others feel about CRS-5 and its certain brighter spotlight.

Nothing routine about launches, true, although SpaceX has done a good job with sound and successful missions of late, and even successful failures such as CRS-1's lost engine on ascent and the textbook destruction of the wayward F9R-Rev1.

Does anyone see CRS-5 becoming a larger event, not just for the planned booster flyback that interests most of us here, but as a question mark of confidence to the "unwashed masses" in the popular media sphere, or, better, the investors and politicians that define policy and funding for Commercial Cargo and Crew missions? I'm sure the whole booster flyback will cause unnecessary alarm bells for people who don't read their press kits.

I don't think Musk necessarily wants to be the confidence-booster for the national endeavors of commercial flight's future, but it's certainly looking that's going to happen.

[llanitedave]

I don't think Musk necessarily wants to be the confidence-booster for the national endeavors of commercial flight's future, but it's certainly looking that's going to happen.

If it works, it should be very, very good for business.  Don't see why he'd try to avoid it.

[Kabloona]

With a bad week for commercial space ventures behind us and still fresh in memory and investigation, I'm wondering how others feel about CRS-5 and its certain brighter spotlight.

Nothing routine about launches, true, although SpaceX has done a good job with sound and successful missions of late, and even successful failures such as CRS-1's lost engine on ascent and the textbook destruction of the wayward F9R-Rev1.

Does anyone see CRS-5 becoming a larger event, not just for the planned booster flyback that interests most of us here, but as a question mark of confidence to the "unwashed masses" in the popular media sphere, or, better, the investors and politicians that define policy and funding for Commercial Cargo and Crew missions? I'm sure the whole booster flyback will cause unnecessary alarm bells for people who don't read their press kits.

I don't think Musk necessarily wants to be the confidence-booster for the national endeavors of commercial flight's future, but it's certainly looking that's going to happen.

Just remember that Elon has downplayed chance of first-time success, calling it a 50-50 shot. Also, events like this don't really catch public media attention without video, which may not happen this flight.

When a successful landing happens on the platform located just off the Cape, within range of on-shore video cameras, that will be a big event.