-
#500
by
Comga
on 14 Jan, 2019 19:34
-
True... If they're going with a 2-day rendezvous then the latest launch date before the high beta angle period would then be on February 10th (just one day after the supposedly current launch date with docking on February 12th). The earliest launch date after the beta angle period would then be February 18th (with docking on the 20th).
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the first Dragon 1 flight to the ISS (COTS-2/3?) include practicing autonomously aborting and retreating? If these are included, and it seems highly likely, NASA will have to go through some sort of formal approval before they can be used on terminal guidance. Heaven only knows what other test they will conduct and need the results of to get approved before actually going in to dock. Since it could take them two days to catch up to the ISS given a launch not specifically set up for quick rendezvous, it hardly seems like a two day approach. And I can't imagine them going into this with a backup day a week away.
That would hint at a NET
Feb 17 launch.
"Musk Time" on steroids!
(Appropriate as NASA is the only organization that still thinks "on steroids" is a good thing.
)
I wish I had kept track of all the prospective launch dates.
This would be a GREAT time to see one of those FPIPs to see what else is going on at the ISS.
Edit: The Dragon for COTS-2+ was captured on
Flight Day 4.
-
#501
by
Alexphysics
on 14 Jan, 2019 19:50
-
True... If they're going with a 2-day rendezvous then the latest launch date before the high beta angle period would then be on February 10th (just one day after the supposedly current launch date with docking on February 12th). The earliest launch date after the beta angle period would then be February 18th (with docking on the 20th).
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the first Dragon 1 flight to the ISS (COTS-2/3?) include practicing autonomously aborting and retreating? If these are included, and it seems highly likely, NASA will have to go through some sort of formal approval before they can be used on terminal guidance. Heaven only knows what other test they will conduct and need the results of to get approved before actually going in to dock. Since it could take them two days to catch up to the ISS given a launch not specifically set up for quick rendezvous, it hardly seems like a two day approach. And I can't imagine them going into this with a backup day a week away.
That would hint at a NET Feb 17 launch.
"Musk Time" on steroids!
(Appropriate as NASA is the only organization that still thinks "on steroids" is a good thing. )
I wish I had kept track of all the prospective launch dates.
This would be a GREAT time to see one of those FPIPs to see what else is going on at the ISS.
Edit: The Dragon for COTS-2+ was captured on Flight Day 4.
I don't think they're going to go that way of retreating and then docking the next day. I think they'll just make the rendezvous and docking procedure more lengthy to test everything step by step so everything is checked out for DM-2. While a normal docking may last about 30min like Soyuz, I could see this first one going on for more than an hour but not something like for COTS 2+ where they went back and then captured it on the next day.
-
#502
by
envy887
on 14 Jan, 2019 20:28
-
True... If they're going with a 2-day rendezvous then the latest launch date before the high beta angle period would then be on February 10th (just one day after the supposedly current launch date with docking on February 12th). The earliest launch date after the beta angle period would then be February 18th (with docking on the 20th).
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the first Dragon 1 flight to the ISS (COTS-2/3?) include practicing autonomously aborting and retreating? If these are included, and it seems highly likely, NASA will have to go through some sort of formal approval before they can be used on terminal guidance. Heaven only knows what other test they will conduct and need the results of to get approved before actually going in to dock. Since it could take them two days to catch up to the ISS given a launch not specifically set up for quick rendezvous, it hardly seems like a two day approach. And I can't imagine them going into this with a backup day a week away.
That would hint at a NET Feb 17 launch.
"Musk Time" on steroids!
(Appropriate as NASA is the only organization that still thinks "on steroids" is a good thing. )
I wish I had kept track of all the prospective launch dates.
This would be a GREAT time to see one of those FPIPs to see what else is going on at the ISS.
Edit: The Dragon for COTS-2+ was captured on Flight Day 4.
Doesn't Crew Dragon have a lot of extra propellant for orbital maneuvering? Why can't they use that for faster phasing even if they can't pick a day with a good phasing alignment?
-
#503
by
mlindner
on 15 Jan, 2019 14:46
-
-
#504
by
mn
on 15 Jan, 2019 18:19
-
-
#505
by
woods170
on 16 Jan, 2019 07:51
-
-
#506
by
scr00chy
on 16 Jan, 2019 10:42
-
That is in direct contradiction with things I'm hearing from both SpaceX and NASA sources. So, I'm taking this with a grain of salt.
What about this?
https://twitter.com/KarenSBernstein/status/1082311710671847424I work for NASA on the Commercial Crew Program. We are working at normal staffing levels because the launch schedule for SpaceX and Boeing is critical to NASA’s mission. I do not yet have a sense of my team’s motivation to work without pay.
-
#507
by
woods170
on 16 Jan, 2019 11:45
-
That is in direct contradiction with things I'm hearing from both SpaceX and NASA sources. So, I'm taking this with a grain of salt.
What about this? https://twitter.com/KarenSBernstein/status/1082311710671847424
I work for NASA on the Commercial Crew Program. We are working at normal staffing levels because the launch schedule for SpaceX and Boeing is critical to NASA’s mission. I do not yet have a sense of my team’s motivation to work without pay.
Fits the picture.
There are also non-NASA, non-SpaceX, non-Boeing contractors involved with the CCP which are currently not doing anything, due to the government shut-down. One of those is the Aerospace Corporation, which is involved in certification efforts for CCP.
NASA-side of CCP may be up-and-running (without pay that is) but several other aspects of CCP are currently flat on their backs.
DON'T expect that to NOT have impact on schedule.
-
#508
by
Comga
on 16 Jan, 2019 22:09
-
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1085604474419380224
At the risk of appearing thick to the more knowledgeable people here, would someone please explain this?
How is it "fortuitous"?
What "aspect of CCtCap contract" is advantageous?
Does that mean that SpaceX doesn't need a license from FAA for the DM-1 flight?
-
#509
by
IntoTheVoid
on 17 Jan, 2019 01:12
-
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1085604474419380224
At the risk of appearing thick to the more knowledgeable people here, would someone please explain this?
How is it "fortuitous"?
What "aspect of CCtCap contract" is advantageous?
Does that mean that SpaceX doesn't need a license from FAA for the DM-1 flight?
Yes, Irene's claim is that DM-1 and DM-2, and presumably, by extension the In-Flight Abort, do not need FAA launch licenses, being viewed as NASA launches, like TESS was. Jeff's explanation is that this may be because CCtCap is a NASA contract, as opposed to the COTS test flights, which were performed under a Space Act Agreement. This not needing an FAA license is fortuitous because the FAA is not issuing new or modified launch licenses during the gov't shutdown, and therefore the FAA closure will not hold up these tests. (Without saying what other issues may hold them up)
-
#510
by
joek
on 17 Jan, 2019 02:05
-
At the risk of appearing thick to the more knowledgeable people here, would someone please explain this?
How is it "fortuitous"?
What "aspect of CCtCap contract" is advantageous?
Does that mean that SpaceX doesn't need a license from FAA for the DM-1 flight?
Yes, Irene's claim is that DM-1 and DM-2, and presumably, by extension the In-Flight Abort, do not need FAA launch licenses, being viewed as NASA launches, like TESS was. Jeff's explanation is that this may be because CCtCap is a NASA contract, as opposed to the COTS test flights, which were performed under a Space Act Agreement. This not needing an FAA license is fortuitous because the FAA is not issuing new or modified launch licenses during the gov't shutdown, and therefore the FAA closure will not hold up these tests. (Without saying what other issues may hold them up)
CCiCap's (SAA) successor CCtCap (FAR) has two distinctly different parts: (1) RDT&E and certification, including DM-x missions; and (2) post-certification flights. While the entire CCiCap contract is under FAR, (2) are commercial flights under standard commercial FAR rules (thus requiring FAA commercial license); (1) are not. Or such is the apparent logic.[1]
p.s. SpaceX in-flight abort was--and presumably still is--under CCiCap (SAA), and would thus require an FAA commercial license.
[1] edit: Which makes sense if you view CCtCap as a hybrid of two distinct contracts jammed into one document--which is what it is. COTS/CRS did something similar, although while the contracts COTS(SAA) and CRS(FAR) were kept separate, they were awarded concurrently; CCtCap could not take the COTS/CRS approach (different discussion not for this thread).
-
#511
by
Alexphysics
on 21 Jan, 2019 12:51
-
It seems the mission slipped to February 16th.
Russian article about it:
https://ria.ru/20190121/1549642994.htmlfrom Google Translate:
"The launch of the Dragon-2 ship has been postponed to February 16. A further postponement of the launch dates is not excluded. At least, the American side says so," the agency’s source said.
Ben Cooper's site seems to agree with that:
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.htmlThe next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral will launch the first Crew Dragon space capsule
on an uncrewed demonstration mission, DM-1, to the ISS from pad 39A on mid-February at the
earliest. The launch time is around 7 to 9am EST if this timeframe and gets 22-26 minutes earlier each
day. The launch window is instantaneous.
-
#512
by
Alexphysics
on 22 Jan, 2019 06:29
-
Worth noting the Falcon 9 has the DM-1 Crew Dragon on top for the static fire
https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1087607771711852547
The Falcon 9 rocket set to launch SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft next month has arrived on pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in preparation for a static test-firing as soon as Wednesday.
-
#513
by
jpo234
on 22 Jan, 2019 09:26
-
Worth noting the Falcon 9 has the DM-1 Crew Dragon on top for the static fire
https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1087607771711852547
The Falcon 9 rocket set to launch SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft next month has arrived on pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in preparation for a static test-firing as soon as Wednesday.
Question answered. Kind of called it...
Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...
-
#514
by
pospa
on 22 Jan, 2019 10:30
-
Worth noting the Falcon 9 has the DM-1 Crew Dragon on top for the static fire
https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1087607771711852547
The Falcon 9 rocket set to launch SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft next month has arrived on pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in preparation for a static test-firing as soon as Wednesday.
There is qualification requirement from NASA for F9+CD human flights: demonstrate 5 times successful load-and-go procedure before 1st lift off with humans on board CD. This is to finalize flight qualification of inovated COPV, Merlins, etc., all block 5 human rating modifications.
It suppose to be the following live tests:
1. DM-1 Static Fire
2. DM-1 Launch
3. IAT Static Fire
4. IAT Launch
5. DM-2 Static Fire
Only when all 5 will be OK, DM-2 flight licence will be granted (from NASA or FAA, or both?).
-
#515
by
jpo234
on 22 Jan, 2019 11:41
-
-
#516
by
Alexphysics
on 22 Jan, 2019 12:27
-
Worth noting the Falcon 9 has the DM-1 Crew Dragon on top for the static fire
https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1087607771711852547
The Falcon 9 rocket set to launch SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft next month has arrived on pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in preparation for a static test-firing as soon as Wednesday.
There is qualification requirement from NASA for F9+CD human flights: demonstrate 5 times successful load-and-go procedure before 1st lift off with humans on board CD. This is to finalize flight qualification of inovated COPV, Merlins, etc., all block 5 human rating modifications.
It suppose to be the following live tests:
1. DM-1 Static Fire
2. DM-1 Launch
3. IAT Static Fire
4. IAT Launch
5. DM-2 Static Fire
Only when all 5 will be OK, DM-2 flight licence will be granted (from NASA or FAA, or both?).
I know, I've actually reminded that here at least twice.
-
#517
by
TGMetsFan98
on 22 Jan, 2019 12:40
-
I feel like I’m missing something. How does having Dragon mated to F9 help certify F9’s fueling procedures? Unless it’s having the abort system fueled and armed?
-
#518
by
jpo234
on 22 Jan, 2019 12:51
-
I feel like I’m missing something. How does having Dragon mated to F9 help certify F9’s fueling procedures? Unless it’s having the abort system fueled and armed?
It shows confidence that the (human rated) booster won't blow up.
-
#519
by
Norm38
on 22 Jan, 2019 12:56
-
But the plan for crew is to have them strapped into their seats in Dragon before any fueling beings, right? That way if something still did go wrong, they could pad abort?
So I guess it shows confidence. But if I was putting Dragon on top of the stack for the static fire, I'd have the abort motors live and ready to fire. Just in case.
)