-
#260
by
Senex
on 22 Nov, 2018 20:06
-
Maybe the access arm is position so that in event of contingencies the arm can swing back to the Dragon for emergency crew egress..
It could also still be in motion in this rendering. By the time the F9 clears the tower, it may be fully retracted to the other side of the tower.
It probably has to be retracted prior to fueling for aborts. That would be a really slow retraction.
edit: Maybe it holds slightly off for abort access and quicker reconnection if that is ever needed.
And maybe it's just a painting . . . by an artist . . . who "just made it up" . . . and we're overthinking it . . . as usual . . .
-
#261
by
crandles57
on 23 Nov, 2018 15:13
-
-
#262
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 23 Nov, 2018 15:31
-
Launch time roughly worked out to be 23:55 EST on 7 January, 0455 UTC on 8 January based on known Falcon 9 orbital insertion/Dragon phasing abilities and ISS ground track.
January 7 at the earliest, at 11:57pm EST if that day.
per launch photography
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
2 min is good enough for 'rough work'
Excellent. And that would actually make 23:55 EST the opening of the 5min window as F9s w/ Dragons always target the dead-center of the 5min window for phasing requirements. So that all matches wonderfully.
-
#263
by
Comga
on 23 Nov, 2018 18:39
-
Launch time roughly worked out to be 23:55 EST on 7 January, 0455 UTC on 8 January based on known Falcon 9 orbital insertion/Dragon phasing abilities and ISS ground track.
January 7 at the earliest, at 11:57pm EST if that day.
per launch photography
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
2 min is good enough for 'rough work'
Excellent. And that would actually make 23:55 EST the opening of the 5min window as F9s w/ Dragons always target the dead-center of the 5min window for phasing requirements. So that all matches wonderfully.
Ah
Launch Photography says
The launch time gets 22-25 minutes earlier each day.
My calculation, based on a printed 5.02 deg/day orbital precession, was 20.08 min/day. Hence the discrepancy.
Should have derived the values from first principles
This is a "better" result, as in easier to observe than 2 in the morning.
edit: First principles don't help. Drops to 4.48 deg/day for current 405 km altitude, instead of increasing to "launch photography" value.
Calculation still says ~2 AM launch.
-
#264
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 25 Nov, 2018 17:07
-
-
#265
by
HeartofGold2030
on 25 Nov, 2018 17:16
-
There are are several reviews that must be done before each CRS launch. Safety Review Panel meetings typically finish about 2 months before flight (several meetings. I know theres 3 phases to the SRP reviews, and each can be multiple meetings). Stage Operations Readiness Review is an ISS-side thing (not just the visiting vehicle, but managing all of the stuff it'll interface with on the station and making sure it won't conflict with other operations up there) and usually 3-4 weeks before launch. Flight Readiness Review is usually 1-2 weeks out. Each company also has their own separate review process in parallel to this, which can continue up until a few hours pre-launch. And there are Range reviews too, though for the most part thats just a rubber stamping. These are usually public, but not publicized, because nobody outside the hardcore spaceflight fandom really cares.
How DM-1 differs from the standard CRS mission is something probably NASA personnel could only answer.
-
#266
by
Michael Baylor
on 29 Nov, 2018 21:35
-
-
#267
by
programmerdan
on 29 Nov, 2018 21:40
-
-
#268
by
TorenAltair
on 29 Nov, 2018 22:03
-
They should cancel the whole contract. Offer transportation as is, take it NASA or leave it but don't play those games.
-
#269
by
kevinof
on 29 Nov, 2018 22:07
-
-
#270
by
rockets4life97
on 29 Nov, 2018 22:09
-
Boeing will go first. You can count on it.
-
#271
by
Charlie Beran
on 29 Nov, 2018 22:23
-
Boeing will go first. You can count on it.
Really sad if NASA is indeed doing every thing they can (to the detriment of SpaceX) to help Boeing fly crew first.
-
#272
by
Kansan52
on 29 Nov, 2018 23:08
-
Is the safety investigation into SX and Boeing causing the delay?
-
#273
by
joek
on 29 Nov, 2018 23:34
-
They should cancel the whole contract. Offer transportation as is, take it NASA or leave it but don't play those games.
NASA would most likely leave it and continue with Boeing--and SpaceX would be out significant in-plan $ due to defaulting on in-progress and future milestones and payments. (And likely claw-back of any CCtCap progress payments.)
Trying to arm-twist or threaten your customer when there is a competitor ready and willing to fill your shoes (that would be Boeing) is stupid--unless it cost more to continue than stop. Which I seriously doubt.
Be assured that if there is a delay or change due to NASA or other USG actions outside the control of the contractor, NASA will pay (as unfortunately will the US taxpayer). FAR contracting cuts both ways.
-
#274
by
ulm_atms
on 29 Nov, 2018 23:39
-
I consider this one of the times that Elon should send a tweet as to what the heck is going on (if possible, all though I can't see why not currently unless he is afraid to piss off NASA by making them look bad).
If this is a PR thing as a lot of people think....well...Elon has his own PR department....himself.
Sorry if this sounds rant'ish...but I can't fathom the delays after delays for "safety" and other things and then pile into a capsule/rocket that has had two issues in a row. And for the kicker....DM-1 HAS NO CREW!!! So the safety notion is out the window for this delay. My notion is that NASA can't get out of NASA's way either politically or other.
-
#275
by
ulm_atms
on 29 Nov, 2018 23:46
-
Sorry for the double post but had a question that didn't go with the other comment.
I have looked but cannot find....
What happens if DM-1 fails it's tests?
Does SpaceX have to re-fly on their own dime? Does NASA pay some/all?
I know they won't fly the crew mission unless it passes all objectives. Just curious. If it has been posted, just point me to it.
EDIT:Spelling
-
#276
by
clongton
on 29 Nov, 2018 23:52
-
The administrator attributed the delay to challenges with several components, including landing parachutes.
Haven't the parachutes already been tested and certified?
-
#277
by
joek
on 29 Nov, 2018 23:59
-
I consider this one of the times that Elon should send a tweet as to what the heck is going on (if possible, all though I can't see why not currently unless he is afraid to piss off NASA by making them look bad).
A tweet is fundamentally no different than a press release. You don't issue random press releases that impact customers without their involvement. It's called "being a good partner"; it's part of doing business, and has been since the stone age.
Sorry if this sounds rant'ish...but I can't fathom the delays after delays for "safety" and other things and then pile into a capsule/rocket that has had two issues in a row. And for the kicker....DM-1 HAS NO CREW!!! So the safety notion is out the window for this delay. My notion is that NASA can't get out of NASA's way either politically or other.
A more disciplined examination of what DM-1 is intended to accomplish and demonstrate might be in order. It is intended to demonstrate key aspects required for safe transport of crew and docking with ISS. The fact that it has no crew is irrelevant to the goal of demonstrating a safe system.
-
#278
by
joek
on 30 Nov, 2018 00:09
-
The administrator attributed the delay to challenges with several components, including landing parachutes.
Haven't the parachutes already been tested and certified?
As far as I can tell, they have tested (the new 4-chute system) repeatedly over the last many months. It is still unclear whether NASA has "certified". Based on this information, presumably not. NASA's certification or exit criteria is not public knowledge (we have very little visibility into the CCtCap contract changes-amendments) so it's anyone's guess as to what is required to close-certify.
-
#279
by
kdhilliard
on 30 Nov, 2018 00:14
-
The administrator attributed the delay to challenges with several components, including landing parachutes.
Haven't the parachutes already been tested and certified?
Here [Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread] is our discussion of the October 11 NASA ASAP meeting in which the parachute issue (among others) were raised, and
here is woods170 rebuttal to the seriousness of the issues based on information from his contacts.
2018-10-11 ASAP Public Meeting Transcript Pg. 2:
recent parachute testing, both during the CCP qualification (qual) testing regimen and with some anomalies witnessed in the resupply contract (also handled by SpaceX), show difficulties and problems with parachute designs. Clearly, crew cannot be risked without complete confidence in the parachute design. It is an integral part of capsule return for both providers and a crucial element of crew safety.
Dr. McErlean noted that there has always been a Program requirement that before Demo-2 (the first crewed launch), there must be an uncrewed flight test of all the critical systems that are scheduled as “risk mitigations” for crewed flight. The parachute system is one of those. Whether or not investigation of the recent parachute anomalies results in redesign, it is the Panel’s view that the parachute system used in the uncrewed flight test must be the same as that used in the crewed flight test. Redesign drives regression testing, additional qual testing, and flight testing, which can clearly lead to schedule impact.
Edit: Added link to woods170's rebuttal and expanded ASAP quote.
