SpaceX CCtCAP Milestones

[joek]

There has always been a lot of hyperbole around the Shuttle. 

Glad someone caught that .  Seriously, any of these vehicles may be capable of ISS re-boost.  Question is how much is it worth vs. just continuing with the status quo?  Likely answer: not much.

[guckyfan]

Seriously, any of these vehicles may be capable of ISS re-boost.  Question is how much is it worth vs. just continuing with the status quo?  Likely answer: not much.

I agree, there is no need as long as the cooperation with Russia continues. What I slightly object to is the argument it cannot be done.

Edit: Fixed quote.

[Comga]

(snip)
I do wonder about reboost. It has been said that the ports are in the wrong position. But the Shuttle did reboosts, right? The Shuttle docking port is one of the ports for CC vehicles so why not? Is it about reorientation of the ISS?

The Shuttle had ACS thrusters well away from the docking port.
These include the ones on the OMS pods, which we well below the ISS when docked.
Even the ones by the nose are pretty far from the central axis.
Does anyone here know which Shuttle thrusters were used?
For Dragon to do a reboost might require rotating the entire ISS to put it in the rear.  That can be done, but it's a major undertaking for a half million kilogram satellite.

But this is not a CCtCAP milestone, so I will stop here.

[Targeteer]

July 29, 2016 
RELEASE 16-080
NASA Orders Second SpaceX Crew Mission to International Space Station
 <http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/16-080.jpg>
This artist's concept shows a SpaceX Crew Dragon docking with the International Space Station, as it will during a mission for NASA's Commercial Crew Program. NASA is partnering with Boeing and SpaceX to build a new generation of human-rated spacecraft capable of taking astronauts to the station and back to Earth, thereby expanding research opportunities in orbit.


NASA took another important step Friday in returning U.S. astronaut launches from U.S. soil with the order of a second post-certification mission from commercial provider SpaceX in Hawthorne, California. Commercial crew flights from Florida’s Space Coast to the International Space Station will restore America’s human spaceflight launch capability and increase the time U.S. crews can dedicate to scientific research, which is helping prepare astronauts for deep space missions, including the Journey to Mars.

"The order of a second crew rotation mission from SpaceX, paired with the two ordered from Boeing will help ensure reliable access to the station on American spacecraft and rockets," said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. "These systems will ensure reliable U.S. crew rotation services to the station, and will serve as a lifeboat for the space station for up to seven months."

This is the fourth and final guaranteed order NASA will make under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts. Boeing received its two orders in May <http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/commercial-crew-milestones-met-partners-on-track-for-missions-in-2017>  and December <http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-orders-second-boeing-crew-mission-to-international-space-station>  of 2015, and SpaceX received its first order in November <http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-orders-spacex-crew-mission-to-international-space-station>  2015. Both companies have started planning for, building and testing the necessary hardware and assets to carry out their first flight tests, and ultimately missions for the agency.

At a later time, NASA will identify which company will fly the first post-certification mission to the space station. Each provider’s contract includes a minimum of two and a maximum potential of six missions.

SpaceX met the criteria for this latest award after it successfully completed interim developmental milestones and internal design reviews for its Crew Dragon spacecraft, Falcon 9 rocket and associated ground systems.

"We’re making great progress with Crew Dragon, with qualification of our docking adapter and initial acceptance testing of the pressure vessel qualification unit completed" said Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX president and chief operating officer. “We appreciate the trust NASA has placed in SpaceX with the order of another crew mission and look forward to flying astronauts from American soil next year."

SpaceX is building four Crew Dragon spacecraft at its Hawthorne facility -- two for qualification testing and two for flight tests next year. The company also is in the process of modifying Launch Pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, from which the company will launch future crewed missions to the space station.

A standard commercial crew mission to the station will carry as many as four crew members and about 220 pounds of pressurized cargo, and remain at the station for as long as 210 days, available as an emergency lifeboat during that time.

“With the commercial crew vehicles from Boeing and SpaceX, we will soon add a seventh crew member to space station missions, which will significantly increase the amount of crew time to conduct research,” said Julie Robinson, NASA’s International Space Station chief scientist. “Given the number of investigations waiting for the crew to be able to complete their research, having more crew members will enable NASA and our partners to significantly increase the important research being done every day for the benefit of all humanity.”

Orders under the CCtCap contracts are made two to three years prior to actual mission dates in order to provide time for each company to manufacture and assemble the launch vehicle and spacecraft. Each company also must successfully complete a certification process before NASA will give the final approval for flight.

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program manages the CCtCap contracts and is working with each company to ensure commercial transportation system designs and post-certification missions will meet the agency’s safety requirements. Activities that follow the award of missions include a series of mission-related reviews and approvals leading to launch. The program also will be involved in all operational phases of missions.

For more information about NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew <http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew>

http://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew

[the_other_Doug]

Any chance the Max-Q flight abort test could involve a test of propulsive landing?  There would be no downmass, and the flight abort test is supposed to now be using a "real" Dragon 2 vehicle.  You could have parachute backup if propulsion failed early on to make sure you save the vehicle, but could do a propulsive landing into the ocean, or even onto OCSISLY.

Then again, would the abort itself use up too much fuel for there to be enough left for a propulsive landing, even from the lower speed and altitude from which the Dragon would be starting out?

[John Alan]

The abort is going to use a lot of on board prop in a very short time to outrun a speeding rocket on it's azz... 
My guess is the tanks will run dry in short order... 

My other guess is SpX will use simulated landings at first during Dragon 2 actual flights later... 
Pick a safe (say 10K feet) height and try to stop midair at that point... then resume free fall and pop the chutes.
If you can hit X/Y gps location at Z altitude and 0 velocity... you landed it... in a way... 

They could use a cargo plane to get above this point repeatably I guess... if they wanted more testing...
As long at it drops it high enough to reach terminal velocity AND steady state controlled flight...
(heat shield down and under controlled flight)
C-17 at 35K feet... maybe 

Point is... they can test it on every reentry of the D2... till everyone is comfortable with it...
Then reset it to ground level and go for it on the next flight... 

[deruch]

Updated chart courtesy of Jeff Foust on twitter.

Two milestones aren't listed which could mean they were completed:
- Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Integrated Test
- Validation Propulsion Module Testing

Could also mean nothing since this chart has less milestones in general than previous lists.

Foust only tweeted out the "Major Milestones" chart.  There was a more complete one at the end of the presentation that it came from.  The full slides can be found at: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf

Attaching the 2 most relevant ones for this thread, including the fuller milestones chart.

[deruch]

Updated chart courtesy of Jeff Foust on twitter.

Two milestones aren't listed which could mean they were completed:
- Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Integrated Test
- Validation Propulsion Module Testing

Could also mean nothing since this chart has less milestones in general than previous lists.

Foust only tweeted out the "Major Milestones" chart.  There was a more complete one at the end of the presentation that it came from.  The full slides can be found at: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf

Attaching the 2 most relevant ones for this thread, including the fuller milestones chart.

By the way, what the heck is "Gz Studies"?

[TrueBlueWitt]

One note I hadn't realized, and maybe just because I haven't paid enough attention?

"Common First Stage w/Falcon Heavy Design"

They chose the beefier FH S1 design to add margin for Crew Rating?
Is it required due Margin shortfall with increased mass of Dragon 2 over Cargo Dragon?

Personally I think I'd feel safer on the base S1 design that's flown a bunch of times.

[AncientU]

Does this get them closer to qualifying the FH as well as F9 for crew?

[Mike_1179]

By the way, what the heck is "Gz Studies"?

Guessing here, but evaluating the impact of acceleration along the head-to-foot (or head-to-posterior) axis during launch and re-entry. Acceleration along the Gz axis is the one that pulls blood away from your brain and can lead to passing out. Launch and re-entry profile can impact the peak and sustained acceleration along each axis, so they are looking at how changes to OML, center of mass / center of pressure, energy management during descent (how you rotate the capsule to change where the lift vector points) impact these accelerations.

[Jim]

One note I hadn't realized, and maybe just because I haven't paid enough attention?

"Common First Stage w/Falcon Heavy Design"

They chose the beefier FH S1 design to add margin for Crew Rating?

Doesn't say it is the core for the FH, it likely is the strap on

[Jim]

Does this get them closer to qualifying the FH as well as F9 for crew?

Not as it relates to NASA. 

[DanielW]

One note I hadn't realized, and maybe just because I haven't paid enough attention?

"Common First Stage w/Falcon Heavy Design"

They chose the beefier FH S1 design to add margin for Crew Rating?

Doesn't say it is the core for the FH, it likely is the strap on

Would it make sense to use the core for leo becuase dragon would presumably use FH for beo? I would assume NASA would not care since they are not ordering BEO missions, but spacex may be interested in a single qualification path so they can sell higher energy manned missions to whomever.

[Jim]

Would it make sense to use the core for leo becuase dragon would presumably use FH for beo? I would assume NASA would not care since they are not ordering BEO missions, but spacex may be interested in a single qualification path so they can sell higher energy manned missions to whomever.

If it isn't for NASA, then there is no need for this exercise or any of these paths.

[Nomadd]

Would it make sense to use the core for leo becuase dragon would presumably use FH for beo? I would assume NASA would not care since they are not ordering BEO missions, but spacex may be interested in a single qualification path so they can sell higher energy manned missions to whomever.

If it isn't for NASA, then there is no need for this exercise or any of these paths.

The possibilty of NASA being one of the customers in the future sort of means it is for them. They wouldn't want to have to make serious hardware changes after it's flying to meet NASA standards. I take it that DanielW incldes NASA in "whomever"

[gongora]

I think ya'll are reading too much into a PowerPoint bullet. I doubt it means that they are actually using FH cores, or even FH side boosters.

[Space Ghost 1962]

FWIW, think the comment just is meant to imply that accumulating flight history on FH/F9 boosters for what it means to crew program, is the same, in maturing/reducing risk of the vehicle.

[BruceM]

Not sure if everyone saw the recent delays in Boeing's milestones from SpaceNews.com:

Under the revised schedule, a pad abort test of the CST-100, previously scheduled for October 2017, is now planned for January 2018. An uncrewed CST-100 flight, called the Orbital Flight Test, has shifted from December 2017 to June 2018.

A crewed flight test of the CST-100 to the International Space Station, carrying a NASA astronaut and Boeing test pilot, has been delayed from February to August 2018. If that schedule holds, Being anticipates flying its first operational, or “post-certification,” CST-100 mission to the ISS in December 2018.

Not really a big fan of Boeing but would much prefer seeing them carrying astronauts than the Russians so hope they can stay on the new schedule.

Wonder to what extent SpaceX might be helped or hindered by the current down time.  Any thoughts?

[OnWithTheShow]

I would imagine Dragon development is probably continuing unabated.