QuoteNASA’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/929026335640571907QuoteHartman: 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
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.
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.
Remember when people said that adoption of reused boosters would be slow and that NASA would be too conservative?
Quote from: mme on 11/10/2017 05:14 pmRemember when people said that adoption of reused boosters would be slow and that NASA would be too conservative?CRS has much more risk tolerance than other NASA flights.
True but a month ago "common knowledge" was that NASA would not fly CRS missions on reused boosters because they already "paid for a new booster" and "were too conservative."
Quote from: gongora on 11/10/2017 05:21 pmQuote from: mme on 11/10/2017 05:14 pmRemember when people said that adoption of reused boosters would be slow and that NASA would be too conservative?CRS has much more risk tolerance than other NASA flights.True but a month ago "common knowledge" was that NASA would not fly CRS missions on reused boosters because they already "paid for a new booster" and "were too conservative."Anyway, I didn't mean to derail this thread. Maybe I should have responded on the customers views on reusability thread.
Quote from: mme on 11/10/2017 05:29 pmQuote from: gongora on 11/10/2017 05:21 pmQuote from: mme on 11/10/2017 05:14 pmRemember when people said that adoption of reused boosters would be slow and that NASA would be too conservative?CRS has much more risk tolerance than other NASA flights.True but a month ago "common knowledge" was that NASA would not fly CRS missions on reused boosters because they already "paid for a new booster" and "were too conservative."Anyway, I didn't mean to derail this thread. Maybe I should have responded on the customers views on reusability thread.If the perception of "they already paid" holds, could it be that possibly NASA will seek to make an amendment to the SpaceX CRS contracts so as to get more flights out of them per the sums paid for using the used reflown boosters?
People have said repeatedly on these forums that launches are a service and that while the buyer has some input on the vehicle they do not own it nor do they have a right to it.
The contract may well have allowed this from the beginning as long as the boosters met NASA requirements when they are ready to fly the mission.
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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/25/2017 12:22 amAs 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.I remember when the first Falcon 9 upgrade came around everyone was saying SpaceX would have to keep using the old boosters for CRS. They were wrong. The JASON-1 mission had the requirement but CRS didn't. CRS is a service contract. SpaceX doesn't even have to use Dragon if they don't want.
I remember when the first Falcon 9 upgrade came around everyone was saying SpaceX would have to keep using the old boosters for CRS. They were wrong. The JASON-1 mission had the requirement but CRS didn't. CRS is a service contract.
SpaceX doesn't even have to use Dragon if they don't want.
Quote from: intrepidpursuit on 11/24/2017 11:51 pmPeople have said repeatedly on these forums that launches are a service and that while the buyer has some input on the vehicle they do not own it nor do they have a right to it.True. But because the market is relatively small, there is a relatively small number of providers, and the services to be rendered require a lot of engineering interface, customers do have a lot of insight into the service providers. NASA has been a significant customer for SpaceX since before Falcon 9 started flying, and they have been provided constant updates and insight into what SpaceX has been doing.QuoteThe contract may well have allowed this from the beginning as long as the boosters met NASA requirements when they are ready to fly the mission.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.However, SpaceX was providing discounts to early customers that chose to fly on previously flown boosters, so NASA might be getting a discount on this flight too. Not that the discount is the major incentive, since I think NASA wants to encourage reusable space transportation systems, and is willing to help that goal by using early versions of that service.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/25/2017 12:22 amQuote from: intrepidpursuit on 11/24/2017 11:51 pmPeople have said repeatedly on these forums that launches are a service and that while the buyer has some input on the vehicle they do not own it nor do they have a right to it.True. But because the market is relatively small, there is a relatively small number of providers, and the services to be rendered require a lot of engineering interface, customers do have a lot of insight into the service providers. NASA has been a significant customer for SpaceX since before Falcon 9 started flying, and they have been provided constant updates and insight into what SpaceX has been doing.QuoteThe contract may well have allowed this from the beginning as long as the boosters met NASA requirements when they are ready to fly the mission.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.However, SpaceX was providing discounts to early customers that chose to fly on previously flown boosters, so NASA might be getting a discount on this flight too. Not that the discount is the major incentive, since I think NASA wants to encourage reusable space transportation systems, and is willing to help that goal by using early versions of that service.It's none of that. ISS CRS is completely separate from the rest of NASA launch vehicle users. CRS only really worries about the cargo getting to the ISS and has little insight to the booster. They rely on LSP for advice but it is at a high level. This is completely different from the LSP managed missions, which there has only been one. So it is wrong to characterize ISS dealings with Spacex as the overall "NASA" relationship. Take away ISS cargo missions, and "NASA" really has little to with Spacex. Basically, just as much as it has with Pegasus in the last few years.
