-
#160
by
cscott
on 27 Aug, 2015 15:35
-
Probably just a lead time issue. The original spares would have been the long lead time parts, specifically so that this sort of contingency didn't derail the whole schedule. Once both IDAs are on orbit, presumably contingency foresight and schedule flexibility increases so they can afford to eat a long lead time for a replacement part if trends indicate that it will be needed.
-
#161
by
Comga
on 27 Aug, 2015 16:45
-
Minor nit. My sources tell me there won't be made another set of spares.
Kind of strange. You'd think they'd want spares for a mechanism as important and open to abuse as that. I'd hate to have a port down for a year while they fabricated parts. Maybe a replacement could be made in short order.
Not so strange
From my experience with flight hardware, the set of spare parts would have been fabricated with the parts for the first and second IDA units. These would have been relatively low cost because there would not have been separate material orders, machine set-up time, or material processing. Much of that can be done serially or in batches.
To create a fourth set of parts from scratch would be much more expensive.
The spare parts were insurance against a major calamity. That this has happened and the program runs without such insurance to the end is part of the original risk posture. Not everything can be guaranteed.
edit: But this is not about RTF, so we are wandering Off Topic. It is understandable. I am also anxious to hear real news and a more definitive launch date, even with what is being discussed in L2.
-
#162
by
CameronD
on 27 Aug, 2015 23:28
-
NASA has (for now) not re-manifested IDA-2 to HTV. It is still planned to go up on another Dragon. Meaning: still not classed as a high-value payload.
..or meaning, with more than a hint of irony: if you want to use it, take it up yourself!!
-
#163
by
woods170
on 28 Aug, 2015 08:53
-
Minor nit. My sources tell me there won't be made another set of spares.
Kind of strange. You'd think they'd want spares for a mechanism as important and open to abuse as that. I'd hate to have a port down for a year while they fabricated parts. Maybe a replacement could be made in short order.
Let me put it this way: when was the last time an on-orbit docking port of the ISS became inoperable to the point it had to be replaced?
Answer: never.
-
#164
by
SimonFD
on 28 Aug, 2015 10:35
-
Minor nit. My sources tell me there won't be made another set of spares.
Kind of strange. You'd think they'd want spares for a mechanism as important and open to abuse as that. I'd hate to have a port down for a year while they fabricated parts. Maybe a replacement could be made in short order.
Let me put it this way: when was the last time an on-orbit docking port of the ISS became inoperable to the point it had to be replaced?
Answer: never.
Conversely, There's a first time for everything............
-
#165
by
woods170
on 28 Aug, 2015 10:56
-
Minor nit. My sources tell me there won't be made another set of spares.
Kind of strange. You'd think they'd want spares for a mechanism as important and open to abuse as that. I'd hate to have a port down for a year while they fabricated parts. Maybe a replacement could be made in short order.
Let me put it this way: when was the last time an on-orbit docking port of the ISS became inoperable to the point it had to be replaced?
Answer: never.
Conversely, There's a first time for everything............
Oh, that's a fact. But 4+ decades of operational space stations has shown that the average docking port is very robust indeed. Particularly the Russian ones. And mind you, the international docking standard (on which the IDA's are based) is a direct derivative of Russian docking ports.
-
#166
by
spacenut
on 28 Aug, 2015 14:23
-
Has anyone heard anything on when SpaceX will return to flight?
-
#167
by
DanseMacabre
on 28 Aug, 2015 14:33
-
-
#168
by
Chris Bergin
on 28 Aug, 2015 16:52
-
Has anyone heard anything on when SpaceX will return to flight?
To add to Danse's post....
Things are moving forward all the time and I'm thinking we may hear an update from SpaceX soon - potentially next week is what I've heard, but Elon controls that - as they push from failure investigation into RTF.
RTF could be by the end of October, but the "NET" is actually "November 1" for SES-9, and there's dates for several missions after that, but it's all incredibly preliminary. So for context, not really "NET", but "Prelim", not least with a CRS flight in the mix - which needs ISS VV scheduling and such. I know ISSP are saying "let us know and we'll work it out" so no set schedule on their side yet. Once things are firmed up we'll set up the coverage threads for each mission.
Bottom line is they need to finish the investigation, which has included a lot of work at McGregor, get it signed off and then they'll start setting dates. If a date becomes official (and it's not already out there), it will be turned around into the open forum in real time as I know people plan to fly out to launches and need to book flights, etc.
There's been recent movement of hardware (at least one stage) so that feels more like they are moving into flows again now, or at least being on the ball for the green light. Could get real busy when they do get back into the salvo of launches!
-
#169
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 31 Aug, 2015 16:13
-
Shotwell on AIAA Space 2015 panel mention of RTF:
"not finished with investigation"
"deep dive" through systems to learn all the lessons from LOM
"two months" to next flight.
"customers don't want us to rush".
http://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/SPACE2015
-
#170
by
savuporo
on 31 Aug, 2015 16:17
-
-
#171
by
Eagandale4114
on 31 Aug, 2015 19:22
-
-
#172
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 31 Aug, 2015 20:35
-
You'll notice she caught herself and corrected. She started to say that "they were still trying to find ..." and then restated.
My hunch is that they have the culprit, but expected processes/procedures/simulations/etc to have caught things like this, so they might feel a dangling shoe waiting to drop, and want to get that too. A hit on confidence that mars the ego.
This does not surprise me, as they have been very lucky as new provider, in an area where new providers have never survived. They took a good hit, and getting back up on that horse with all that ego along is going to be hard.
I'm certain that eventually they will find what bugs them and get their "mojo" back.
-
#173
by
Gordon C
on 01 Sep, 2015 12:56
-
Or the air force isn't satisfied.
-
#174
by
Gordon C
on 01 Sep, 2015 13:08
-
So, spacex does everything it can to build parts in house. Why was a strut coming from a supplier? Why don't the just buy a machine that makes the strut. Is it cast I to shape in a foundry or something?
-
#175
by
Kabloona
on 01 Sep, 2015 13:43
-
Parabolicarc reporting that he's hearing the failure cause was "something more than the strut." Yes, this is rather nebulous, but his sources are usually reliable.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/08/31/shotwell-couple-months-falcon-9-return-flightEditor’s Note: I’ve been hearing reliable reports that something more than the strut was the cause of the accident in June. The last I heard, they were still trying to figure out exactly what happened.
-
#176
by
Joaosg
on 01 Sep, 2015 13:54
-
Parabolicarc reporting that he's hearing the failure cause was "something more than the strut." Yes, this is rather nebulous, but his sources are usually reliable.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/08/31/shotwell-couple-months-falcon-9-return-flight
Editor’s Note: I’ve been hearing reliable reports that something more than the strut was the cause of the accident in June. The last I heard, they were still trying to figure out exactly what happened.
Charles Lurio said those rumors were incorrect, and parabolicarc replied "ok".
https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/638551125336047617Not sure if parabolicarc's "ok" is ironic or he knows that Charles Lurio has better sources.. I can't understand what's happening in those tweets
-
#177
by
Kabloona
on 01 Sep, 2015 14:16
-
Parabolicarc said "ok" to Lurio but didn't change his post. So apparently he still believes his sources. YMMV.
-
#178
by
guckyfan
on 01 Sep, 2015 14:24
-
To me the statements by Gwynne Showell und Hans Königsmann seemed quite clear. Cause of the failure was the strut problem. However they are reconsidering their whole approach to Quality Assurance which involves more components that can potentially cause another problem.
-
#179
by
baldusi
on 01 Sep, 2015 14:59
-
To me the statements by Gwynne Showell und Hans Königsmann seemed quite clear. Cause of the failure was the strut problem. However they are reconsidering their whole approach to Quality Assurance which involves more components that can potentially cause another problem.
Yes, they might still be trying to determine the exact causes that lead to the strut failure, both during the mishap and process wise.
