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

[Mader Levap]

NASA and SpaceX have preliminarily agreed to launch the next two cargo resupply missions to ISS atop reusable rockets."

Technically SpaceX launched NASA cargo on reusable rockets all this time.

[wannamoonbase]

NASA and SpaceX have preliminarily agreed to launch the next two cargo resupply missions to ISS atop reusable rockets."

Technically SpaceX launched NASA cargo on reusable rockets all this time.

That was my first thought too.  The wording of that statement could be made more clearly.

It may mean, launch on a fresh booster, then refly that booster for the next NASA mission.

Either way, if they fly a CRS mission on a re-used booster, that is a gigantic step forward.

[ChrisGebhardt]

NASA confirmation that CRS-13 will go from SLC-40 in December.  https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invites-media-to-upcoming-space-station-cargo-launch

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Media accreditation is open for launch of the next SpaceX commercial cargo resupply services mission to the International Space Station, currently targeted for no earlier than December.

The uncrewed Dragon cargo spacecraft, which was flown on SpaceX’s sixth commercial resupply mission to station for NASA, will launch on a Falcon 9 rocket. The launch will be the first this year from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in Florida.

Media prelaunch and launch activities will take place at CCAFS and NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, which is adjacent to CCAFS. Credentialing deadlines are as follows:

International media without U.S. citizenship must apply by 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 1, for access to CCAFS or 4:30 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 19, for access to Kennedy media activities only.
U.S. media must apply by 4:30 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 26.
All media accreditation requests should be submitted online at:

https://media.ksc.nasa.gov/

For questions about accreditation, please email: [email protected]. For other questions or additional information contact Kennedy’s newsroom at 321-867-2468.

This is the 13th SpaceX mission under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services contract. In addition to supplies and equipment, Dragon will deliver several science investigations to the space station, including a NASA instrument called Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance Sensor, or TSIS-1, which will measure the Sun's energy input to Earth, and a fiber optic payload. Also manifested on this flight is an investigation sponsored by the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space known as Biorasis – Glucose Biosensor, which seeks to improve the accuracy of a wireless medically implantable continuous glucose biosensor for day-to-day diabetes management.

The International Space Station is a convergence of science, technology and human innovation that demonstrates new technologies and makes research breakthroughs not possible on Earth. The space station has been occupied continuously since November 2000. In that time, more than 200 people and a variety of international and commercial spacecraft have visited the orbiting laboratory. The space station remains the springboard to NASA's next great leap in exploration, including future missions to Mars.

For launch countdown coverage, NASA's launch blog, and more information about the mission, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/spacex

[ChrisC]

Is there not a CRS-13 UPDATES thread?  By my understand of the ways and means of NSF, if there's a discussion thread, there's an updates thread

[gongora]

Is there not a CRS-13 UPDATES thread?  By my understand of the ways and means of NSF, if there's a discussion thread, there's an updates thread

The Updates thread doesn't really need to exist until a few weeks before the event (we're still about 5 weeks out from the launch).  Feel free to post any news in this thread.

[ChrisC]

But in that case, this mission thread would normally be called just "CRS-13", not "CRS-13 discussion".  Normally you then split it into "updates" and "discussion" threads at some point closer to launch when things get busy.  The fact that there is a thread named "discussion" told me to go look for an "updates" thread.  In other words, this thread is misnamed.  (gets down off tiny soapbox)

(gets back up on it)
EDIT: I'm going to add more here instead of making another post so as not to annoy people with new activitiy notifications in this thread.

The below argument simply does not match what we've done here before, and I can prove it.  Go to the parent of this thread and look at the thread listing.  All* of the missions well into the future (next year) have a single thread, as expected.  BUT THEY AREN'T CALLED "DISCUSSION".  The discussion/updates thread content AND NAMING split doesn't happen until we get closer to launch and activity/interest picks up.  I'm complaining that this thread's name is breaking convention.  Honestly, I thought my original post above was going to immediately prompt a moderator here to go "yup!" and rename this thread.  Or do the split.
(gets back down off tiny, won't bring it up again)

* OK, "plenty" then   From the first page:

SpaceX Falcon 9 / Dragon 2 : SpX-DM1 : April, 2018 : General Thread
Falcon Heavy Demo Mission: NET Dec '17 :Updates/Relevant Discussion
SpaceX Falcon 9 : PAZ : SLC-4E Vandenberg : Jan. 30, 2018
SpaceX Falcon 9 : TESS : March 18, 2018 : GENERAL THREAD
SpaceX Falcon 9 : Spaceflight SSO-A (Sun Synch Express) : Q2 2018

All of these are all-encompassing threads that haven't been split yet.  That's what I expect to see, until they are split into updates+discussion.  It's funny how both us can point to evidence supporting our arguments   You do show that this problem is bigger than I thought, and so this thread is less of an outlier than I thought.  And finally, not really a big problem, just annoying for those of us who just want updates, like garidan said below ...

[IntoTheVoid]

But in that case, this mission thread would normally be called just "CRS-13", not "CRS-13 discussion".  Normally you then split it into "updates" and "discussion" threads at some point closer to launch when things get busy.  The fact that there is a thread named "discussion" told me to go look for an "updates" thread.  In other words, this thread is misnamed.  (gets down off tiny soapbox)
*snip*
 All of the missions well into the future (next year) have a single thread, as expected.  BUT THEY AREN'T CALLED "DISCUSSION".

Sorry, but you're mistaken. While your scenario sometimes happens, it is more the exception rather than the standard. Most often, a discussion thread is created when a launch is announced and an update thread is not created until much deeper in the process flow when there's solid data for an update thread without it going dormant for months on end.

For instance, the KoreaSat launch at the end of the month only got an update thread at the beginning of this month, while the discussion thread has existed since mid 2016. The first posts are generally updated to point to each other, and other relevant thread or articles, so you can pick a random mission thread (or 3) and check the date, then go to the opposite thread and compare the two dates. The update threads are often a year or more later. Iridium is also a bit of a special case, being a series, because there's not even much discussion on launch n+2, or n+1, until launch n actually launches.

On Edit:
'All' is quite a limiting word you've chosen. From just the 1st 2 pages...
Future :
Zuma has a discussion thread, no update.
Sentinel-6 (Jason-CS) has a discussion thread, no update.
SES-16 Govsat-1 has a discussion thread, no update.
Hispasat 30W-6 has a discussion thread, no update.
Telstar 19 has a discussion thread, no update.
Iridium Next 6 with GRACE FO has a discussion thread, no update.
Past:
Koreasat 5a: Discussion: Aug 2016 Update: Oct 2017
SES-11: Discussion: Jul 2016 Update: Sep 2017
Formosat 5: Discussion: Jun 2010 Update: Jul 2017

[garidan]

I too was looking for the update thread, because I just read of the SLC-40 news on twitter and I was looking for a "certified" note, not a discussion about it.
As posts pass, this news will be buried by nonsense posts like this one of mine :-)
No problem, but even if "dormient" for long months, creating an update and a discussion thread at its announce would fit better with me, and ease the way for catching up readers along the way to launch.
But it's just me :-)

[woods170]

Taking a non-L2-worthy sub-discussion to the public part of the forum:

Four words: Tang, t-shirts, toilet paper.

"External cargo: Space Debris Sensor, MISSE-FF, TSIS"

That's some fairly pricy toilet paper going up.

See here, Appendix B: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PR_8705_0004_/N_PR_8705_0004_.pdf

For launch vehicles, see here: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/NPD_attachments/AttachmentA_7C.pdf

Take-away: Risk classification has exactly NOTHING to do with the items being expensive or not.

NASA has certified Falcon 9 for flying Category 2 (Medium Risk) missions only. This in turn means that only Class C and Class D payloads (and sometimes Class B, provided it has been granted a waiver) can be flown on Cargo Dragon. Space Debris Sensor, MISSE-FF and TSIS are all Class C payloads, regardless of them being expensive or not.

[deruch]

Taking a non-L2-worthy sub-discussion to the public part of the forum:

Four words: Tang, t-shirts, toilet paper.

"External cargo: Space Debris Sensor, MISSE-FF, TSIS"

That's some fairly pricy toilet paper going up.

See here, Appendix B: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PR_8705_0004_/N_PR_8705_0004_.pdf

For launch vehicles, see here: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/NPD_attachments/AttachmentA_7C.pdf

Take-away: Risk classification has exactly NOTHING to do with the items being expensive or not.

NASA has certified Falcon 9 for flying Category 2 (Medium Risk) missions only. This in turn means that only Class C and Class D payloads (and sometimes Class B, provided it has been granted a waiver) can be flown on Cargo Dragon. Space Debris Sensor, MISSE-FF and TSIS are all Class C payloads, regardless of them being expensive or not.

Ummmm... Cost is listed right there in the Risk Classification table.  At one point, I saw actual dollar amounts being corresponded to those classifications but I can't seem to find the source document right now.

[woods170]

Taking a non-L2-worthy sub-discussion to the public part of the forum:

Four words: Tang, t-shirts, toilet paper.

"External cargo: Space Debris Sensor, MISSE-FF, TSIS"

That's some fairly pricy toilet paper going up.

See here, Appendix B: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PR_8705_0004_/N_PR_8705_0004_.pdf

For launch vehicles, see here: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/NPD_attachments/AttachmentA_7C.pdf

Take-away: Risk classification has exactly NOTHING to do with the items being expensive or not.

NASA has certified Falcon 9 for flying Category 2 (Medium Risk) missions only. This in turn means that only Class C and Class D payloads (and sometimes Class B, provided it has been granted a waiver) can be flown on Cargo Dragon. Space Debris Sensor, MISSE-FF and TSIS are all Class C payloads, regardless of them being expensive or not.

Ummmm... Cost is listed right there in the Risk Classification table.  At one point, I saw actual dollar amounts being corresponded to those classifications but I can't seem to find the source document right now.

My statement stands. Risk clasification is based on a combination of factors. Cost alone never determines the risk factor. Hence my statement.

[meekGee]

Taking a non-L2-worthy sub-discussion to the public part of the forum:

Four words: Tang, t-shirts, toilet paper.

"External cargo: Space Debris Sensor, MISSE-FF, TSIS"

That's some fairly pricy toilet paper going up.

See here, Appendix B: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PR_8705_0004_/N_PR_8705_0004_.pdf

For launch vehicles, see here: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/NPD_attachments/AttachmentA_7C.pdf

Take-away: Risk classification has exactly NOTHING to do with the items being expensive or not.

NASA has certified Falcon 9 for flying Category 2 (Medium Risk) missions only. This in turn means that only Class C and Class D payloads (and sometimes Class B, provided it has been granted a waiver) can be flown on Cargo Dragon. Space Debris Sensor, MISSE-FF and TSIS are all Class C payloads, regardless of them being expensive or not.

Ummmm... Cost is listed right there in the Risk Classification table.  At one point, I saw actual dollar amounts being corresponded to those classifications but I can't seem to find the source document right now.

I get the intent of this table, but this is the most evasive-qualitative table I've seen in a long time...

Second from last row:
Significant, some-or-few, few-or-no, no.
Lovely.

Second row:
Very high, high, medium, medium-to-low
They almost had at least four different words there, but had to ruin it at the end.

How can this table be used to make real decisions, other than "fly JSWT on the most reliable rocket you can find"?

And what if there's a payload whose cost is low, but is irreplaceable?  (Should have been:  Cost to replace)

Anyway, that was a rant, in case nobody noticed.

[192]

Taking a non-L2-worthy sub-discussion to the public part of the forum:

Four words: Tang, t-shirts, toilet paper.

"External cargo: Space Debris Sensor, MISSE-FF, TSIS"

That's some fairly pricy toilet paper going up.

See here, Appendix B: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PR_8705_0004_/N_PR_8705_0004_.pdf

For launch vehicles, see here: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/NPD_attachments/AttachmentA_7C.pdf

Take-away: Risk classification has exactly NOTHING to do with the items being expensive or not.

NASA has certified Falcon 9 for flying Category 2 (Medium Risk) missions only. This in turn means that only Class C and Class D payloads (and sometimes Class B, provided it has been granted a waiver) can be flown on Cargo Dragon. Space Debris Sensor, MISSE-FF and TSIS are all Class C payloads, regardless of them being expensive or not.

Looking at the Category 3 part of the certification table, it seems the only requirement for alternative 1 not required for both Category 2 alternatives is 14 consecutive successful launches, can we expect Falcon 9 to be Category 3 certified soon seeing as it has 15 so far this year?

[rockets4life97]

I expect F9 Block V will be certified to fly class A and B late next year. I would think humans would count as class A+.

[Chris Bergin]

NASA's approved CRS-13 to fly on CRS-11's booster. We've been following it in L2, but it has now become a decision, so that's great news. More in the coming period, but to get the news out there, added it to William's Koreasat article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/falcon-9-koreasat-5a-nasa-approves-flown-boosters/

[Kaputnik]

Brilliant news. I wonder if this booster becomes a candidate for three flights, as it will be the first reflown one not to have had a GTO mission and hot entry.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Brilliant news. I wonder if this booster becomes a candidate for three flights, as it will be the first reflown one not to have had a GTO mission and hot entry.

Yes, fantastic news. I think whether it flies a third time may depend on how block 5 is coming along. If SpaceX have enough recovered boosters to have at most one reflight each, before flight proven block 5s are available, then I think they'll wait for a block 5 to be the first to fly thrice.

[Chris Bergin]

NASA PAO want us to add a note it's not an official decision on flight proven. Standard for something they want to control per going official. Obviously adhered to that request, holding to our stance (as I know it's accurate) but adding in their request to note the status of NASA's public stance.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

NASA’s Dan Hartman: “Chances are” we’ll agree with SpaceX to fly reused Falcon 9 booster on CRS-13 cargo flight to station in December. Still awaiting final readiness review and assessments.

https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/929026335640571907

Hartman: in final stages determining if we’ll fly SpX-13 on a previously-flown Falcon 9 booster. One more SpaceX review; if that comes back positive, likely we will do so.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/929026203985633280

[mn]

NASA’s Dan Hartman: “Chances are” we’ll agree with SpaceX to fly reused Falcon 9 booster on CRS-13 cargo flight to station in December. Still awaiting final readiness review and assessments.

https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/929026335640571907

Hartman: in final stages determining if we’ll fly SpX-13 on a previously-flown Falcon 9 booster. One more SpaceX review; if that comes back positive, likely we will do so.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/929026203985633280

If they were to decide not to go with previously flown booster, does that mean they still fly Dec 4 with a new booster? or a likely delay? (seems kind of late to be deciding which booster to use for a flight in roughly 3 weeks?)