-
#280
by
joek
on 30 Nov, 2018 00:21
-
...
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.
You won't easily find that information; it is not in the public record (i.e., CCtCap contract or amendments). But, based on similar contracts... It depends. Would they have to re-fly start-to-finish? Likely not. Would they have to demonstrate that they had a risk treatment plan for any failures? Definitely yes. Would they have to re-fly to demonstrate the risk treatment plan was effective? Maybe. Who would pay for it? Depends. LV blew up on the pad or in flight? Likely the contractor. Failure to dock at the ISS due to an integration issue, likely a bit of contribution from both NASA and the contractor.
-
#281
by
clongton
on 30 Nov, 2018 00:25
-
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.
Thank you. IMO that is a valid reason to delay the flight of DM-1. It has nothing to do with trying to set up Boeing to fly first (conspiracy theory). If SpaceX has anomalies with parachutes, even on Cargo Dragon, I agree these need to be adjudicated before crew risks their lives on them. Because DM-2 will be crewed, DM-1 is the correct vehicle to demonstrate the anomaly mitigation. Delay the flight, install the mitigated systems and only then should it fly.
-
#282
by
cppetrie
on 30 Nov, 2018 00:39
-
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.
Thank you. IMO that is a valid reason to delay the flight of DM-1. It has nothing to do with trying to set up Boeing to fly first (conspiracy theory). If SpaceX has anomalies with parachutes, even on Cargo Dragon, I agree these need to be adjudicated before crew risks their lives on them. Because DM-2 will be crewed, DM-1 is the correct vehicle to demonstrate the anomaly mitigation. Delay the flight, install the mitigated systems and only then should it fly.
Except that we have been told by those in the know that the anomalies were within the design parameters and still provided adequate margin per the design. So this seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. No system can be perfectly modeled or predicted so to build a parachute system that operates exactly as modeled every time is wholly unrealistic. That is why adequate margin is built into the design to account for small variability within the design parameters.
-
#283
by
ulm_atms
on 30 Nov, 2018 00:43
-
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.
I didn't say for Elon to go "@$^$ing NASA can't do anything right and the delays are because of that!!!" But, why can't he say "The reason for the delay is because NASA thinks X and we need to work on Y" It's NASA putting out all the info about safety reviews and DM-1 delays(or at least Bridenstine..anyone else from NASA say anything?)....and not one single iota from SpaceX. It's not like them to be quite while everyone else is talking about them...they are a very "public" company.
And DM-1 is to demonstrate the safety of SpaceX's version of crew transport and make sure everything is ready for crew. But constantly pushing back the test only causes us to continue to rely on a single vehicle that's safety record seems to be going in the wrong direction.
But politically....SpaceX is bad and needs to go away....that's what all of this feels like. That's why I find it weird that only Bridenstine is saying things and that he seems to not be on the same page as the rest of NASA.
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.
Thank you. IMO that is a valid reason to delay the flight of DM-1. It has nothing to do with trying to set up Boeing to fly first (conspiracy theory). If SpaceX has anomalies with parachutes, even on Cargo Dragon, I agree these need to be adjudicated before crew risks their lives on them. Because DM-2 will be crewed, DM-1 is the correct vehicle to demonstrate the anomaly mitigation. Delay the flight, install the mitigated systems and only then should it fly.
I thought the tests showed some anomalies but were within tolerance? What's the point of having a tolerance threshold if you are unhappy if something is within it?
Look, I'm not saying we should just say, screw it, lets go regardless. Too much is riding on both companies doing it right the first time(SpaceX more I feel). I am against political issues causing delays however. It's just weird that SpaceX is not saying anything and NASA everything.
-
#284
by
Michael Baylor
on 30 Nov, 2018 00:54
-
-
#285
by
joek
on 30 Nov, 2018 01:35
-
I didn't say for Elon to go "@$^$ing NASA can't do anything right and the delays are because of that!!!" But, why can't he say "The reason for the delay is because NASA thinks X and we need to work on Y" It's NASA putting out all the info about safety reviews and DM-1 delays(or at least Bridenstine..anyone else from NASA say anything?)....and not one single iota from SpaceX. It's not like them to be quite while everyone else is talking about them...they are a very "public" company.
Did not suggest Elon would go gangster on NASA. In any case, NASA is the customer. You don't go around the customer. Ever. It's bad for business. We have seen this before; nothing unusual for SpaceX to be circumspect when a customer is involved.[1] No idea where you are getting the impression that it is "not like them"; SpaceX is doing exactly what they have always done--and what they should do--when a customer is involved: let the customer lead.
But politically....SpaceX is bad and needs to go away....that's what all of this feels like. That's why I find it weird that only Bridenstine is saying things and that he seems to not be on the same page as the rest of NASA.
Bridenstine is head of a key SpaceX customer. No more of an oddity than SpaceX deferring to any other customer for communications to the public about their mission or payload. Nothing weird or nefarious about it. What is Bridenstine saying that "seems to not be on the same page as the rest of NASA"?
[1] edit: Only time we have seen an inkling of SpaceX stepping outside that circle was Shotwell's very brief and focused statement regarding
SpaceX's LV performance on the Zuma mission. Shotwell was careful to walk a very fine line and address only SpaceX's LV part of the equation; not the customer-payload aspects.
-
#286
by
joek
on 30 Nov, 2018 01:39
-
Except that we have been told by those in the know that the anomalies were within the design parameters and still provided adequate margin per the design. ...
Unless you cannot explain the anomalies. In which case, you better go back and figure out how to explain those anomalies so that some unknown does not come back and bite you in the a**.
edit: And let's differentiate between "anomaly" and "within the error bars". The former suggests an unexpected and unexplained behavior; the latter suggests behavior within modeled-predicted behaviors. If we have an anomaly that needs to be addressed. If the behavior is within modeled-predicted behaviors, then you may be correct in suggesting this is a canard.
-
#287
by
wannamoonbase
on 30 Nov, 2018 01:39
-
...My notion is that NASA can't get out of NASA's way either politically or other.
Obviously, NASP, X-33, X-34 that stupid single stick solid for Orion and the never ending development, but no flight of SLS.
NASA needs to contract services and get out of the way, they'd be 10 times further ahead and actually put humans somewhere.
Dragon V2 will fly, we're close, best get it right and maybe they'll have a back log of vehicles ready to go.
-
#288
by
vt_hokie
on 30 Nov, 2018 01:58
-
I have searched for images or video of the Crew Dragon at KSC, but apparently SpaceX hasn't released anything since the thermal vac photos from Ohio. Any ideas on the current state of the vehicle? I assume it's essentially in a clean room environment with little work being done to it at the moment, with all interior components and flight software in place, but waiting on things like parachute installment. I was hoping we might see some pre-mission PR footage of processing, roll out to the pad, etc. but I guess that'll depend on this latest news.
-
#289
by
Zpoxy
on 30 Nov, 2018 02:19
-
I have searched for images or video of the Crew Dragon at KSC, but apparently SpaceX hasn't released anything since the thermal vac photos from Ohio. Any ideas on the current state of the vehicle? I assume it's essentially in a clean room environment with little work being done to it at the moment, with all interior components and flight software in place, but waiting on things like parachute installment. I was hoping we might see some pre-mission PR footage of processing, roll out to the pad, etc. but I guess that'll depend on this latest news.
Here you go:
https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/180712-spacex-768x768.jpg
-
#290
by
vt_hokie
on 30 Nov, 2018 02:27
-
Ah, thanks, so trunk and nose cone removed there as well. I was looking forward to seeing the entire vehicle stack on the pad soon! But if the launch may get pushed all the way out into spring, I guess we'll have to wait a while for that.
-
#291
by
zodiacchris
on 30 Nov, 2018 03:49
-
Thank God NASA isn‘t involved in Starship, and I bloody well hope it stays that way 😠
-
#292
by
woods170
on 30 Nov, 2018 06:31
-
The administrator attributed the delay to challenges with several components, including landing parachutes.
Haven't the parachutes already been tested and certified?
Tested: Yes.
Certified: No.
-
#293
by
woods170
on 30 Nov, 2018 06:46
-
Except that we have been told by those in the know that the anomalies were within the design parameters and still provided adequate margin per the design. ...
Unless you cannot explain the anomalies. In which case, you better go back and figure out how to explain those anomalies so that some unknown does not come back and bite you in the a**.
edit: And let's differentiate between "anomaly" and "within the error bars". The former suggests an unexpected and unexplained behavior; the latter suggests behavior within modeled-predicted behaviors. If we have an anomaly that needs to be addressed. If the behavior is within modeled-predicted behaviors, then you may be correct in suggesting this is a canard.
Parachute systems are very dynamic, particularly during deployment, and difficult to be completely modeled-predicted.
Even on systems that have been in use for decades (yes: decades) there occasionally is an anomaly (such as a chute not deploying properly) that cannot be explained.
That is why parachute systems have very large margins of error: exactly because not all behaviour of those systems can be modeled.
Crew Dragon can safely land under just 3 parachutes, even with a full load of fuel still on-board. But, NASA wanted to err on the safe side and requested SpaceX to add a fourth parachute to the design. SpaceX complied.
And even now, with a margin of safety that is greater than on any other existing, or soon to exist, crew transportation system, NASA is still getting cold feet.
Finally: it's not just SpaceX that is having trouble in convincing NASA that their parachute system is safe.
Boeing is having nearly exactly the same problem (as referred to by ASAP in their most recent meeting).
-
#294
by
woods170
on 30 Nov, 2018 06:51
-
Thank God NASA isn‘t involved in Starship, and I bloody well hope it stays that way 😠
Elon would be extremely well-advised to keep NASA folks away from any aspect of ITS/BFR/BFS/Starship, at all times.
Because if he doesn't it will either launch never at all or at least a decade late. Not to mention that it won't be financially viable due to all the "features" added to satisfy NASA's demands.
-
#295
by
kevinof
on 30 Nov, 2018 07:03
-
Couldn't agree more. It would be the death of the project and I think you're being a little generous to Nasa when you say a decade late. I suspect it would be a lot, lot more.
Thank God NASA isn‘t involved in Starship, and I bloody well hope it stays that way 😠
Elon would be extremely well-advised to keep NASA folks away from any aspect of ITS/BFR/BFS/Starship, at all times.
Because if he doesn't it will either launch never at all or at least a decade late. Not to mention that it won't be financially viable due to all the "features" added to satisfy NASA's demands.
-
#296
by
woods170
on 30 Nov, 2018 08:25
-
Couldn't agree more. It would be the death of the project and I think you're being a little generous to Nasa when you say a decade late. I suspect it would be a lot, lot more.
Thank God NASA isn‘t involved in Starship, and I bloody well hope it stays that way 😠
Elon would be extremely well-advised to keep NASA folks away from any aspect of ITS/BFR/BFS/Starship, at all times.
Because if he doesn't it will either launch never at all or at least a decade late. Not to mention that it won't be financially viable due to all the "features" added to satisfy NASA's demands.
IMO Crew Dragon is what brings SpaceX on par with NASA and Starship will be the thing where SpaceX leaps beyond NASA.
If anyone at SpaceX would be silly enough to keep NASA in the lead, mankind in general, and SpaceX in particular, will never get to Mars. Ever.
-
#297
by
marsbase
on 30 Nov, 2018 09:12
-
And even now, with a margin of safety that is greater than on any other existing, or soon to exist, crew transportation system, NASA is still getting cold feet.
Finally: it's not just SpaceX that is having trouble in convincing NASA that their parachute system is safe.
You may recall that SpaceX wanted to use propulsive landing with Crew Dragon (Red Dragon) for exactly this reason (and so the manned capsule could land on planets without oceans.
-
#298
by
woods170
on 30 Nov, 2018 10:56
-
And even now, with a margin of safety that is greater than on any other existing, or soon to exist, crew transportation system, NASA is still getting cold feet.
Finally: it's not just SpaceX that is having trouble in convincing NASA that their parachute system is safe.
You may recall that SpaceX wanted to use propulsive landing with Crew Dragon (Red Dragon) for exactly this reason (and so the manned capsule could land on planets without oceans.
Yes. But propulsive landing is what gave some folks at NASA
really cold feet. But that story is from another day and has been told already in another thread.
-
#299
by
gongora
on 30 Nov, 2018 14:51
-
This is the mission thread for DM-1. BFR/Starship conversation doesn't belong here. Propulsive landing discussion doesn't belong here.
