SpaceX Falcon 9 : CRS-13 : Dec 15, 2017 : DISCUSSION

[CyndyC]

I might sound a little like Zach here, but is anyone else going to be watching this launch & delivery with a more cautious eye than usual, because of a certain predecessor with the same & unlucky number? That thinking may be more superstitious than advanced education should allow, and only because the first #13 anomaly was literally close to home for me (the only reason my dad wasn't one of the first men in space was because at 6'3" he was too tall for the Gemini Mercury capsule, and the Lovells were family friends), or it could represent the real possibility of a Poisson distribution leaning in an unfavorable direction, as one actually did when 3 ISS deliveries in a row were not completed.

[gongora]

Who managed the DSCOVR and Jason launches?

DSCOVR was USAF.  Jason-3 was NASA LSP.

[The Roadie]

Flight 1 for this Dragon was CRS-6, on April 14th, 2015.

The refurbishment effort for that mission was judged to be too high. This booster was used on CRS11 last June.

[Coastal Ron]

I might sound a little like Zach here, but is anyone else going to be watching this launch & delivery with a more cautious eye than usual, because of a certain predecessor with the same & unlucky number? That thinking may be more superstitious than advanced education should allow..., or it could represent the real possibility of a Poisson distribution leaning in an unfavorable direction, as one actually did when 3 ISS deliveries in a row were not completed.

If everyone is just focused on their normal jobs, from the factory to the launch pad, then it shouldn't matter which number the vehicle is or the flight is. If people are trying to force meaning onto things that seem to parallel the past, then there could be abnormalities that are introduced.

But let's keep in mind that being the 13th of anything SpaceX will increasingly become rare once reusability is in full swing.

...and only because the first #13 anomaly was literally close to home for me (the only reason my dad wasn't one of the first men in space was because at 6'3" he was too tall for the Gemini capsule, and the Lovells were family friends)...

Now THAT'S a story that would be worth hearing. Have you talked about this in the more appropriate NSF forums?

[intrepidpursuit]

Flight 1 for this Dragon was CRS-6, on April 14th, 2015.

The refurbishment effort for that mission was judged to be too high. This booster was used on CRS11 last June.

The CRS-11 Dragon was also the CRS-4 Dragon and landed in July of this year and definitely isn't being reused again so quickly. The CRS-6 booster wasn't recovered so it certainly won't be reused.

[IanThePineapple]

It will be great when a booster and capsule from the same mission are reunited.

[Elthiryel]

Flight 1 for this Dragon was CRS-6, on April 14th, 2015.

The refurbishment effort for that mission was judged to be too high. This booster was used on CRS11 last June.

Yeah, that's right, obviously. But the question was about the Dragon capsule, not the Falcon first stage.

[joek]

...
As I recall the original Commercial Cargo CRS-1 contract was said to be for new boosters only, but there is the possibility that the CRS-2 contract anticipated reusable boosters.
...

CRS contract did not stipulate new-used-whatever, only that SpaceX would fulfill the contract using SpaceX manufactured Dragon capsules and F9 LV's.  (There's a long discussion of that with quoted contract verbiage somewhere in an old thread.)

In any case, a services contract could not specify new-used-whatever without risking running afoul of FAR rules.  However, NASA has ultimate say on acceptance--whether they deem the capabilities used to provide those services suitable.  (Somewhere in that same old thread is a quote from NASA to that effect.)

In short, everyone is nominally correct.  Contract cannot state new-used-whatever, but NASA has the ultimate say in whether that new-used-whatever is acceptable.  Hope that helps clarify.

[CyndyC]

I might sound a little like Zach here, but is anyone else going to be watching this launch & delivery with a more cautious eye than usual, because of a certain predecessor with the same & unlucky number? That thinking may be more superstitious than advanced education should allow..., or it could represent the real possibility of a Poisson distribution leaning in an unfavorable direction, as one actually did when 3 ISS deliveries in a row were not completed.

If everyone is just focused on their normal jobs, from the factory to the launch pad, then it shouldn't matter which number the vehicle is or the flight is. If people are trying to force meaning onto things that seem to parallel the past, then there could be abnormalities that are introduced.

But let's keep in mind that being the 13th of anything SpaceX will increasingly become rare once reusability is in full swing.

Thank you for adding some level-headed reasoning to my not-so-much.

...and only because the first #13 anomaly was literally close to home for me (the only reason my dad wasn't one of the first men in space was because at 6'3" he was too tall for the Gemini capsule, and the Lovells were family friends)...

Now THAT'S a story that would be worth hearing. Have you talked about this in the more appropriate NSF forums?

[edit- Mercury capsule not Gemini] I was only 6 at the time, my brother 5, and we didn't know all that was happening [edit- only recently put our heads together and recalled more detail]. Neither of my parents is still living to fill in the facts, but there probably aren't enough for a post in the history section anyway. I do remember my father being frustrated & angry, the Lovells coming over one evening, now I suspect to commiserate, Buzz Aldrin or someone resembling him stopping by for a brief conversation later that did not appear to go well, and then my father calling to congratulate "Glenn". Could be NASA did what they could to fit him into the capsule and couldn't, and/or offered to fit him into the space program elsewhere, the reason Buzz Aldrin(?) came by, but it would have been like my dad to be too angry he couldn't be one of the astronauts and refuse. His next gig was on the Saratoga.

[NX-0]

I might sound a little like Zach here, but is anyone else going to be watching this launch & delivery with a more cautious eye than usual, because of a certain predecessor with the same & unlucky number?

I am not superstitious....but I am a little " 'stitious. "

13 is dubbed 'unlucky' hence we are more likely to point out anecdotal evidence of it being so.

In all honestly, if someone had have told me about planning for CRS-13 using slight proven S1 and Dragon among four planned flights for 2017 December, we'd all just chuckle and no one would mention triskaidekaphobia.

[zubenelgenubi]

A FYI reminder:
ISS SOP: Visiting Vehicle docking/berthing and undocking/unberthing is (generally?) avoided during ISS solar panel beta angle > 60 deg. "cutouts."  One of these occurs annually around the December solstice.

I assume, given the lack of a recent FPIP, that this is partially driving the scheduling of the unberthing of Cygnus OA-8, the berthing of Dragon SpX-13, the undocking of Soyuz MS-05, and the docking of Soyuz MS-07.

[ChrisGebhardt]

A FYI reminder:
ISS SOP: Visiting Vehicle docking/berthing and undocking/unberthing is (generally?) avoided during ISS solar panel beta angle > 60 deg. "cutouts."  One of these occurs annually around the December solstice.

I assume, given the lack of a recent FPIP, that this is partially driving the scheduling of the unberthing of Cygnus OA-8, the berthing of Dragon SpX-13, the undocking of Soyuz MS-05, and the docking of Soyuz MS-07.

The upcoming Solar Beta Angle cutout is 17-27.

[jimvela]

Launch date is now 8 December...

[Comga]

A FYI reminder:
ISS SOP: Visiting Vehicle docking/berthing and undocking/unberthing is (generally?) avoided during ISS solar panel beta angle > 60 deg. "cutouts."  One of these occurs annually around the December solstice.

I assume, given the lack of a recent FPIP, that this is partially driving the scheduling of the unberthing of Cygnus OA-8, the berthing of Dragon SpX-13, the undocking of Soyuz MS-05, and the docking of Soyuz MS-07.

The upcoming Solar Beta Angle cutout is 17-27.

Is that December 17th thru 27th?

[mainmind]

A FYI reminder:
ISS SOP: Visiting Vehicle docking/berthing and undocking/unberthing is (generally?) avoided during ISS solar panel beta angle > 60 deg. "cutouts."  One of these occurs annually around the December solstice.

I assume, given the lack of a recent FPIP, that this is partially driving the scheduling of the unberthing of Cygnus OA-8, the berthing of Dragon SpX-13, the undocking of Soyuz MS-05, and the docking of Soyuz MS-07.

The upcoming Solar Beta Angle cutout is 17-27.

Is that December 17th thru 27th?

Yes - December 17 through 27

[zubenelgenubi]

Launch date is now [NET] 8 December...

What the (approximate?) launch time/window, day-by-day, going forward from December 8?  (I remember that the launch time shifts several minutes earlier per day, but I do not remember the amount.)

(The December 4 launch time was 19:53 UTC--I believe it was in the middle of a 5-minute window.)

[mainmind]

Launch date is now [NET] 8 December...

What the (approximate?) launch time/window, day-by-day, going forward from December 8?  (I remember that the launch time shifts several minutes earlier per day, but I do not remember the amount.)

(The December 4 launch time was 19:53 UTC--I believe it was in the middle of a 5-minute window.)

My memory is a little fuzzy, but I think the launch window gets earlier by 23 minutes for every day of delay. So four days of delay could be a window that is 92 minutes earlier, and the windows for Dragons are instantaneous.

[Jcc]

Not wishing to push "luck", but does anyone know if this Dragon will have intentional defects in the heat shield in order to test micrometeoroid impact effects?

[Jet Black]

But let's keep in mind that being the 13th of anything SpaceX will increasingly become rare once reusability is in full swing.

I disagree; eventually every single rocket will have a 13th launch and a 13th reuse (launch 14), to go along with all the other accrued 13s. (not that it matters to the missions, it's just a number)

[Mike_1179]

Not wishing to push "luck", but does anyone know if this Dragon will have intentional defects in the heat shield in order to test micrometeoroid impact effects?

That's not "luck" you'd be talking about. Back in shuttle days, they'd call something like that a DTO (detailed test objective). In one, they wanted to evaluate how the boundary layer would transition from laminar to turbulent flow on re-entry, so they built protuberances on the underside of the orbiter and installed thermocouples downstream of these to see how it affected heat transfer. Some guy wrote a bunch of articles about it: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/sts-119-blt-test-success-gains-greater-understanding-reentry/. Once they got data on one, they went back and made the protuberances larger to further refine the modeling.

So, you can do tests like this on re-entry vehicles, but its not done with hope of luck or handwaving - you do a lot of work to make sure you're safe and to validate your computer models. Then you perform tests of varying degrees of conservatism based on your level of risk you want to accept / data you have collected.

What could be learned from a DTO on Dragon re-entry that wouldn't be learned in an arcjet test facility: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Arcfacts_b.pdf